Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HONG KONG AND CHINA GAS COMPANY PLC BILL [Lords]

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means does not propose to move the private business set down for consideration today.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

National Health Service (Dispute)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the effect on the National Health Service of the Confederation of Health Service Employees and National Union of Public Employees dispute.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): The response to the three national 24-hour stoppages varied across the country. Overall, the effect on hospitals has been that, while doctors and the majority of nurses have maintained patient care, admissions in many districts were restricted to accident and emergencies only and patients were subjected to inconvenience and discomfort. In some instances, emergency cover was not provided.
In addition to those one-day stoppages local action has disrupted administrative and hospital support services in some districts. All of that will have had an adverse effect on patients, which is why we strongly deplore the industrial action being taken.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that I have recently had a meeting at Christchurch hospital with nurses and ancilliary workers who are angry and unhappy with the present position? Is my right hon. Friend aware that they are equally angry and unhappy about being unwillingly enrolled as some sort of stormtroopers in Arthur Scargill's anti-Government campaign? Will my right hon. Friend take note of that and also of the fact that one of the pleas put to me by the majority of those present was that the Government should start to look at alternative ways of funding the National Health Service?

Mr. Fowler: We are not only looking at my hon. Friend's point about raising additional funds for the National Health Service, but taking action by selling surplus land.
My hon. Friend's first point is of fundamental importance. The National Health Service should be warned that its pay dispute is being used for wider political purposes by people who have no interest in the Health Service. That will be deplored by the service and by the public, because patient care is suffering as a result.

Mr. Mike Thomas: How long will the Minister continue to deny that there is real justice in the health workers' claim? How long will the Government continue to believe that people should be paid between 7 and 14 per cent. more if they have industrial muscle, regardless of the merit of their case, while the nurses and health workers, whose cases have great merit, should be screwed down by the Government simply because they are believed not to have industrial muscle?

Mr. Fowler: I am not sure whether it is part of the SDP's extraordinary incomes policy that Health Service workers should be paid 7 or 14 per cent. more. However, in the next few days I shall be having talks with the Royal College of Nursing. As I announced in the debate last week, Mr. Pat Lowry is opening communications between the unions and the Government. Talks on that are continuing.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Secretary of State agree that this problem has been caused by his pig-headed attitude towards the Health Service? When will he recognise that there is not only a legitimate case, but that finances should be made available to meet the just claim that has been put forward by the Health Service workers?

Mr. Fowler: Before the hon. Gentleman comes out with such generalisations, I hope that he will recognise that the Health Service unions' claim would cost about £750 million. I do not believe that that is realistic.

Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is, unfortunately, an appalling difference in the standard of service set by some employees in the National Health Service compared with the example and dedication of the British people in the South Atlantic?

Mr. Fowler: We should not generalise on that. I should like to pay tribute to the nurses and the other staff who have remained at work in the Health Service while the industrial dispute has taken place.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Instead of deliberately trying to divide one set of Health Service workers from another, will the Secretary of State give a proper mandate to Mr. Pat Lowry and ask him to open negotiations with extra money on the table? If he were really interested in the patients, he would be prepared to do that now.

Mr. Fowler: Because I do not believe for one moment that we can sub-contract the decision about how much the Government can afford to pay in this connection, I have asked for Mr. Lowry's help. Those talks are proceeding, and I hope that the hon. Lady will leave it at that.

Private Patients (Greenwich and Bexley)

Mr. Terry Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much money was not collected from private patients using beds or out-patient services such as pathology and X-ray services in National Health Service hospitals of the Greenwich and Bexley area health authority during the financial year 1980–81; and what


action has been taken by the Greenwich and Bexley area health authority to recover this money from the consultants who failed to identify these private patients.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): It is not possible to say what charges for accommodation and services may not have been recovered from private patients by the former Greenwich and Bexley area health authority, but I agree with the implied criticism of that authority's arrangements for the management of private practice. I have taken steps to ensure that improved procedures are introduced and that the new health authorities will keep these under review to minimise the risk of loss of income.

Mr. Davis: As this was the second year running that those weaknesses occurred in that area health authority, is there not a case for trying to find out how much money was lost and then trying to collect it?

Mr. Clarke: The auditor's second year's inquiry showed that the situation was improving. The former area treasurer resigned on the ground of ill-health, and a treasurer was installed by the regional health authority, which led to some improvement. We have discovered exactly what was wrong. It is simply not possible, because of the lack of records, to discover how much money was lost. The most important thing is that the new district health authorities are applying proper procedures, and we shall ensure that all charges are collected in future.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept that, instead of spending a great deal of money on inquiring into the past, it would be far better for the district health authority, especially in Greenwich, to use what money it can to keep the Brook cardiac unit going and, if possible, to reopen the Eltham and Mottingham hospital?

Mr. Clarke: I agree that it is pointless going back into the past when we know exactly what was wrong. That is fully set out in the statutory audit report. We have, therefore, taken steps to make sure that better procedures are applied by the new health authorities which have taken over from the now defunct area health authority in question. The Brook cardiac unit is a separate issue. I know of my hon. Friend's concern and I shall consider it carefully when I receive recommendations from the regional health authority.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give the House a guarantee that this practice has not been taking place in any other areas or districts, and that it will not happen in any areas or districts in the future?

Mr. Clarke: In March of this year we issued a fresh circular setting out clear guidelines to all health authorities about the procedures that are to be followed, and with enough copies for them to be made available to all staff and consultants. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are quite determined that the Health Service should recover proper charges, because the total of £52 million received by the NHS each year from private practice is a valuable contribution to our resources.

Industrial Injuries Scheme

Mr. Stallard: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the Disablement Income Group's response to his White Paper on the future of the industrial injuries scheme.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): The thoughtful comments of the Disablement Income Group are being closely studied. It gave a general welcome to the White Paper and supports most of the proposals that it contains. It has expressed reservations regarding three of the 13 main proposals, and of course those reservations will be taken into full account before any final decisions are taken.

Mr. Stallard: Is the Minister aware that he has failed to reply to the Disablement Income Group's main charge that the proposed reduced earnings allowance flies in the face of the universally accepted case for a national disability income? I and the trade unions are deeply concerned. We fear that the proposals in the White Paper are a further attack on hard-won rights to social security benefits—for instance, the abolition of the injury benefit, the introduction of a 15-week waiting period for disablement benefit, and the abolition of the widows' industrial death benefit, to name but a few. Is the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a few. The hon. Gentleman has asked a long question.

Mr. Rossi: I shall answer the first question. We recognise the problem and acknowledge the force of the DIG argument for a partial incapacity allowance. However, we cannot agree that an allowance for loss of earnings should be abolished. This is an important factor in compensating for the effects of industrial injuries and shows the difference of approach between the trade unions and the DIG, both of which the hon. Gentleman says that he represents today.

Mr. Alfred Morris: How, specifically, does the Minister respond to the Disablement Income Group's charge that abolishing the higher rates of constant attendance allowance will penalise the most severely disabled and make it yet more difficult for many of them to live at home? In view of the much higher costs of institutional care, is this not a silly and self-defeating proposal, as well as being inhumane? How does it square with the Conservative Party's pledge at the last election to single out the disabled for special help?

Mr. Rossi: The proposal to abolish the constant attendance allowance must be seen in the general context of the package proposed in the White Paper. At present there are only 2,300 recipients of constant attendance allowance, against more than 250,000 in the main scheme's attendance allowance. It is administratively sensible to merge those, and, indeed, constant attendance allowance beneficiaries are likely to gain up to £48·30 a week by extra loss of earnings allowance.

Oral Contraceptives

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services for how many woman oral contraceptives were prescribed in the past 12 months.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Provisional figures suggest that oral contraceptives were prescribed for just over 2·8 million women in England in 1981.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. and learned Friend say what percentage or number from that figure were prescribed for girls under the age of 16? Will he categorically deny the report attributed to him in the Daily


Mail of 1 May that he recommended the prescription of the contraceptive pill for girls under the age of 16 and that doctors do so without consulting their parents?

Mr. Clarke: In answer to my hon. Friend's first question, I cannot give any age breakdown for women who receive contraceptive advice, because GPs do not keep statistics on that basis. In answer to the second question, a sub-editor in the Daily Mail put a very racy headline on a speech of mine, saying that I was urging the pill for under-16s. I am glad to say that the text made it clear that I said that every effort should be made by doctors consulted by patients under 16 years of age to persuade them to involve their parents, before going on to give any advice.

Death Grant

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the response so far received to his consultative document on the death grant.

Mr. Rossi: We have issued about 2,000 copies of the consultative document and have so far received replies from 31 organisations and 19 individuals commenting on the proposals.

Mr. Rooker: As 10 weeks of the consultation period have now passed and there are only six weeks to go, will the Minister tell us how many of the 31 organisations and the 19 individuals supported any or all of the options put forward in the consultative paper?

Mr. Rossi: Thirty-one of the correspondents would prefer a higher grant to be more widely available than in the proposals, eight are broadly in favour of one or other of the proposals, eight are non-committal, and three favour the abolition of the death grant.

Mr. Freud: Is the Minister aware that if the death grant had been index-linked, in the way that pensions are linked, the £30, even in the three years during which his party has been in Government, would now be £45? Surely there is good reason for making an immediate substantial award, which could always be clawed back in respect of people who can afford to die?

Mr. Rossi: If it were index-linked, no doubt the contributions relating to it would also have to be index-linked.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is a contributory benefit under a national insurance scheme. This House is reluctant to increase national insurance contributions.

Mr. McCrindle: Even before all the representations on the consultative document have been received, will my hon. Friend say that the Government's preference is to change to a system in which there would be a substantially higher death grant, but payable particularly to those in need?

Mr. Rossi: That is the whole thrust of the consultative document.

Mr. Foulkes: If the majority of the representations on the consultative document suggest that the Government should make an across-the-board substantial increase in the death grant, will the Government accept that?

Mr. Rossi: The problem is that resources simply are not available to enable a substantial grant to be made to rich and poor alike.

Supplementary Benefit

Mr. Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will implement the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee to update the £300 limit for supplementary benefit single payment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): We are carefully reviewing the recommendations in the committee's annual report, including the suggestion of raising the level of the £300 capital rule for single payments. We considered very carefully earlier this year the possibility of increasing it but decided at present to concentrate the available resources on other aspects of the scheme, including raising the overall capital limit for all supplementary benefit claimants.

Mr. Bowden: Is my hon. Friend aware that a significant number of elderly people put a few hundred pounds aside for their funerals and, as a result, are not eligible to receive a single payment towards the cost of high fuel bills either this winter or next winter?

Mr. Newton: I am very much aware of that point. That factor is much in our minds in reconsidering the future of this part of the rule.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the Minister aware that the number of those who have been unemployed for more than a year is now approaching 1 million and that many of them have saved to try to help their pensions when they reach the age of 65? Having saved £2,000 or more, they now find that they are not entitled to supplementary benefit. Do the Government really intend to penalise thrift in this way? If not, when do they propose to do something about the matter?

Mr. Newton: This is a difficult problem, as all Members will recognise. We are dealing with the means-tested safety net scheme of supplementary benefit and it is inevitable that there should be some rule that prevents that form of help going to those who have more than a certain amount of capital. Obviously, there is room for argument about where that limit should be. We would all like to do more in some respects. What we have been able to do so far is to announce that that limit will rise from £2,000 to £2,500 in November. That is not as much as many people would like, but it is a step in a better direction.

Mr. John: When the increase in capital allowance for periodic payments is made, what justification will there be for making no increase in single payments? Why keep it at the present miserable £300?

Mr. Newton: The justification is that we have to choose between priorities, just as the hon. Gentleman would have to if he were in Government. We decided that the top priority was to raise the overall limit.

Aids for the Disabled (Spending)

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services for what reasons spending on aids for the disabled went down from £6·3 million in 1978–79 to £5·1 million in 1980–81.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman is referring to expenditure on aids by local authorities where the number of cases assisted increased over the period in question from 237,372 to 262,109, namely by 10 per cent.
Over the same period expenditure on aids provided direct by the DHSS increased from £42,226,000 to £51,998,000, namely, by 23 per cent.

Mr. Evans: Are not the figures a disgrace, and do they not contradict the promise by the Tory Party at the general election that it would concentrate aid on those most in need? Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman resigned from his office in protest at such appalling figures?

Mr. Rossi: I am not quite sure how the hon. Gentleman terms it a disgrace for more cases at a far larger expense overall to be assisted now than were assisted two years ago.

Mr. McQuarrie: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the International Year of Disabled People last year the Government were widely congratulated the efforts that they made on behalf of the disabled—

Mr. Stallard: Rubbish.

Mr. McQuarrie: —and that the aid has been continued beyond that year?

Mr. Rossi: The International Year of Disabled People was an outstanding success and exceeded all expectations. Indeed, it was a matter for congratulation not merely from within Great Britain but internationally.

Mr. Ashley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why Ministers go on and on about this awful word "compassion", when many disabled people are being deprived of aid, despite the figures that he has quoted? Many are deprived of aid as a direct consequence of Government policy. What will the Minister do about that?

Mr. Rossi: Not all the people who require help have yet received it, but it is our endeavour to try to fulfil the need as quickly as resources enable us to do so.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to aid the disabled without further expenditure from his Department would be for his Department to encourage the owners of public buildings to improve access for the disabled? Will my hon. Friend undertake to do that?

Mr. Rossi: We are encouraging that all the time. A recent Private Member's Bill places obligations on developers and also on planning authorities.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is it not true that in terms of cost effectiveness it would be far better to spend more money on aid?

Mr. Rossi: I should like to spend all the money that could possibly be made available to me.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Telephones)

Mr. Allen McKay: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the change in the number of telephones installed under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act between 1979 and 1981; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rossi: In the year ending 31 March 1979 local authorities assisted with the installation of 16,884 telephones. For the year ending 31 March 1981 the figure was 8,949. However, the total number of telephones in respect of which rentals were being paid was 90,503. This is a matter for local authority decision in each case.

Mr. McKay: Does the Minister agree that this is a disgraceful state of affairs? It represents a 50 per cent. cut

in the number of telephones that have been given to the disabled. Since it has been impressed on local authorities that to accept the need for a telephone and then to put a person on a long waiting list is unlawful, will the Minister now state that it is equally unlawful for local authorities to reassess the individuals and therefore to escape their responsibilities under the Act?

Mr. Rossi: Local authorities are looking more carefully at whether individuals applying for this form of assistance really need it. However, over the same period local authorities have increased assistance with telephone rentals, and total expenditure on assistance with telephones fell to a far lesser degree. If unlawful waiting lists are referred to me, I shall look into them.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister accept that the figures are deeply disquieting? With regard to help for disabled people from local authorities, will he say what action he is taking to improve his Department's procedures in the light of the Ombudsman's report about the case of Mrs. Palfrey.

Mr. Rossi: The right hon. Gentleman should be careful about what he says about Mrs. Palfrey's case. If the reports in newspapers concerning his remarks are accurate, he has misunderstood the matter. Mrs. Palfrey's case was found to be ill-founded. There were delays in dealing with the matter which are being examined and for which regrets have been expressed. Nevertheless, the result would not have been changed in any way if there had been less pressure on the staff dealing with the case.

Home Helps

Mr. Foster: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many local authorities now charge the long term sick and disabled for home helps supplied under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

Mr. Rossi: Eighty-seven local authorities are known to have charged at least some of their clients for home helps during the financial year 1980–81. No information is held centrally about the numbers of long-term sick and disabled people who were charged for home helps nor about the particular statutory provision under which home helps were provided.

Mr. Foster: Is that not an appalling tax on the most needy and poorest members in our community? Did not the Government specifically ask local authorities not to charge when they stopped the Supplementary Benefits Commission from aiding those people in 1980? Were they not warned about this by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) at the time?

Mr. Rossi: Under legislation passed by the House, these are matters for determination by the local authorities. Nevertheless, the Government have made it clear time and again that in effecting economies they do not wish to see the local authorities disadvantaging the most vulnerable in our society.

Mr. McCrindle: While no one particularly enjoys charging the disabled for home helps, is it not true that in present economic circumstances an alternative might have been to reduce the total number of home helps? Is it not arguable that that would have been of even greater disadvantage to the people to whom the questioner refers?

Mr. Rossi: According to the figures published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy there has been an increase in the number of hours provided by home helps.

Mr. Foulkes: Is it not the case that in successive questions on telephones and home helps we have seen that the cuts undertaken by the local authorities at the direction of the Government are harming the most vulnerable in our society? When will the Government do something about that?

Mr. Rossi: I do not agree with the premises of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Nurses

Mr. Speller: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the long-term arrangements for nurses currently being negotiated have yet been settled.

Mr. Fowler: Following my discussions with the nurses and midwives Whitley council on 17 March, a small working group under the chairmanship of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health had its first meeting on 10 June. At that meeting it was agreed that the aim should be to have a new permanent arrangement in place in time for next year's pay settlement. However, it remains clear that a great deal of work needs to be done to develop the ideas that have been discussed so far and the next meeting will therefore be held shortly.

Mr. Speller: The nurses, physiotherapists and similar workers in the Health Service take no pleasure in these annual negotiations, and I am happy that my right hon. Friend is proceeding towards a long-term agreement. May I express the hope that it will be borne in mind that if there cannot be a permanent agreement for the long term, even a two, three or four-year agreement would be useful in saving this annual strife?

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with the generality of my hon. Friend's remarks. We are seeking new permanent arrangements that will continue year after year. I do not think that anyone in the Health Service wants the annual strife that we have seen. We want something that is more sophisticated, more accurate and fairer than the Clegg Commision of last year.

Mr. Race: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in the paper sent to the staff side organisations in February 1982 the Government laid the greatest stress on what they called the concept of affordability? Will he tell the House precisely what he means by that? Will he tell the House also why his hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health gave strong hints at the meeting of 10 June to all the staff organisations to the effect that the special arrangements for pay for the police and the firemen were to be abolished?

Mr. Fowler: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has given an accurate description of what my hon. and learned Friend said. The hon. Gentleman must by now be aware that we have said that the new arrangement should have a number of elements. One element is the job position within the profession. Another element is comparability and a further element is what the nation can afford. That is why it is an improvement upon anything that has gone before.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said, but will he accept that the nursing profession, especially the Royal College of Nursing and the paramedical staff, do not and will not go on strike, and for that reason they deserve to be treated as a special case? Will he give an assurance to the House that the special arrangement that he has mentioned today will definitely be implemented for the next financial year? Will he accept that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends would like to see it implemented during the present financial year?

Mr. Fowler: I give the assurance that we shall do our utmost to have the new arrangement in position by April 1983. I am glad to repeat that assurance to my hon. Friend. I repeat also that we recognise the special position of nurses and, of course, that of the Royal College of Nursing.

Mr. Cryer: Whatever the long-term arrangements that are being negotiated, which no doubt will be welcomed because they will replace the annual bargaining, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the offer of 6 per cent. for nurses and 4 per cent. for other Health Service workers has been greeted with a sense of outrage, especially when senior civil servants and judges can get 18 per cent. without even asking for an increase? Health Service workers are being driven to take industrial action by the Government's parsimony. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Health Service workers in the Airedale general hospital in my constituency welcome the support of Arthur Scargill and the miners in their struggle?

Mr. Fowler: I know of very few who work in the National Health Service and who respect the interests of the service who welcome Mr. Scargill's intervention, which, from the point of view of the Health Service, is a disaster. It will result in a great deal of lost support within the Health Service.

Kidney Transplants

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, further to his answer on 9 March, Official Report, columns 714–15, whether he will give an explanation of the procedure to be followed in deciding which patient should receive a kidney transplant.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, further to his answer on 9 March, Official Report, columns 714–15, whether he will give an explanation of the procedure to be followed in deciding which patient should receive a kidney transplant.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The procedure is mainly designed to ensure that the best possible medical match is achieved between donor and recipient. When a kidney becomes available for transplant, it is tissue typed and the details are checked with patient records to obtain a list of suitable patients in priority order.

Mr. Powell: Will the Minister give an assurance that no priority will be given to private patients in the provision of kidney transplants? Will he give a further assurance that at least some consideration will be given to the 20,000 patients who are awaiting transplants? If the estimated cost is £70 million, will he put pressure on the Cabinet to allocate that sum, instead of spending billions of pounds on the Falklands dispute?

Mr. Clarke: I can give the hon. Gentleman the first assurance that he seeks. No priority has been given to


private patients and none will be given. Patient needs will be assessed on medical grounds alone. The major inhibition in reducing waiting lists is the shortage of kidney donors. The "Panorama" television programme on brain death did considerable harm in reducing the number of donors available. I am glad to say that the position is now recovering. We are as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to reduce waiting lists.

Mr. Meacher: As there is an unmet need for kidney transplants approaching about 14,000, is it not unethical for kidneys specifically donated to the National Health Service to be made available to private patients? Will he give an absolute assurance that no private patient will ever receive a kidney transplant which, according to the criteria of allocation operated in the public sector, he would not get if he were not paying?

Mr. Clarke: I hope that I have already made it clear that National Health Service kidneys are made available only to patients who are eligible for NHS treatment. Priority is determined on medical grounds alone. On the assumption that the procedure is being followed properly, and I have no evidence that it is not, no one should get priority in receiving a kidney transplant because he has opted for private treatment. On the other hand, there is no point in stopping patients opting for private treatment when they receive kidneys in the right priority order.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the consultant who performs a kidney transplant in the private sector is not the most impartial person to decide which person on the common waiting list is the most suitable for an available kidney?

Mr. Clarke: Kidneys, which are in short supply, are distributed largely by the United Kingdom transplant service. The tests that it applies to judge priority take no account of whether the patient will be a private patient or an NHS patient.

Mrs. Dunwoody: We welcome the Minister's assurance. Will he now give an undertaking that there will be a positive publicity campaign to tell the public how many people die unnecessarily every year when kidney donors could be found if only they could be encouraged to carry kidney donor cards?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support. The major problem is the reluctance of many medical people to begin the procedures for obtaining a donor kidney when they have a patient who, unfortunately, has died while in their hands.

Invalidity Benefit

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much it would now cost to restore the 5 per cent. cut in invalidity benefit; and how many people would have their incomes increased by restoration of the cut.

Mr. Newton: The estimated net cost in 1982–83 of restoring the 5 per cent. cut in invalidity benefit is £50 million. The numbers of invalidity pensioners who would have their incomes increased by restoration is estimated to be 620,000.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister will be aware that the 5 per cent. cut was introduced in lieu of taxation and that there

are 600,000 currently suffering an adverse poll tax. Will he give a categoric assurance that the benefit will be restored in full and that the Government will not cheat as they did on unemployment benefit?

Mr. Newton: Yes. I can give that categoric assurance. Indeed, it has been given on many occasions by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. McQuarrie: My hon. Friend has stated that the estimated cost of restoring the cut is only £50 million and that about 650,000 would enjoy the benefit of the restoration. Bearing in mind his personal interest in invalids, will he do his utmost to ensure that restoration takes place in the course of this year?

Mr. Newton: We estimate that the amount of tax that would be paid on bringing the benefit into tax would be rather higher than £50 million. It seems certain that almost all invalidity pensioners would pay tax if it were taxable.

Mr. Alfred Morris: When is it now proposed to tax invalidity benefit? Why has the timetable gone wrong?

Mr. Newton: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget Statement last year, implementation has been put off for 1982. No further date has yet been given. Obviously it is for my right hon. and learned Friend to give a date.

NHS (Ancillary Workers)

Mr. Dover: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average pay for ancillary workers in the National Health Service.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Average earnings are £104·17 a week for full-time men and £84 a week for full-time women. For staff working in London, earnings are increased by allowances of up to £13·68 a week.

Mr. Dover: Is the Secretary of State aware that those wages are about the same as those of building workers and almost as much as those of skilled workers in British Leyland?

Mr. Fowler: Yes. During the past three years there is no question but that earnings have increased by about 50 per cent.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is the Minister aware that many ancillary workers are still extremely badly paid? Why does he insist on offering a long-term arrangement implicitly only to nurses and other similar groups in the NHS? Does he agree that the best approach is to get all Health Service workers to accept that, in return for a "no-strike" undertaking, they will receive proper and regular special treatment to keep their pay up with those outside?

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said in the debate on this matter last week, he would have heard me give almost exactly the assurance for which he now asks. I am quite prepared to discuss new, permanent arrangements for other NHS staff.

Mr. Ashton: The Minister gave the statistics for "a week"? How many hours is that? Does he agree that he is including overtime, which means that it is often a week and a half or 50 to 60 hours? Does he agree that figures are gross and that they take no account of compulsory superannuation deductions or income tax? Will he give the income for a basic 37–40-hour week?

Mr. Fowler: I have already given the average earnings figures. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the overtime figures, which he has grossly exaggerated. The average overtime worked by a male ancilliary is 5½ hours a week and that of a woman is 1½ hours a week.

Mr. Squire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that workers carrying out general duties in the Health Service take twice the share of the cake of total expenditure as they do in the United States? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to increase the provision of private facilities to carry out those services, as opposed to the overwhelming percentage now being carried out by the public sector?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend knows that we are examing that area of policy. He also knows that we have not cut NHS finance. We have increased spending on it by 6 per cent. in real terms. We now spend more than £12 billion a year on it.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that many ancillary workers will resent the fact that he has used figures that have been twisted to provide the Government with a stronger case? Is he aware that many ancillary workers will resent that, especially as they know that many of them take only half of the sum that he quoted in net pay? Is he also aware that they will deeply resent the fact that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), who raised the matter, is the same hon. Member who was not satisfied with his parliamentary salary and wanted to keep his local government salary as well when he came to the House?

Mr. Fowler: I published the average earnings of ancillaries some weeks ago. They have not been challenged by any reputable body or person.

NHS (Hospital Beds)

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest figure for unopened new beds in National Health Service hospitals; and what action is proposed to bring them into use.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In March this year 934 new beds in seven NHS hospitals were unopened. These beds are being progressively brought into use as resources permit. Continuing delays in commissioning new beds will be discussed with regional health authority chairmen at annual review meetings.

Mr. Morris: Irrespective of past poor planning, which created the problem, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the beds remaining unopened represent a serious waste of national resources? Will he ensure that the beds are opened by the end of 1983?

Mr. Clarke: The problem is entirely the result of poor planning and unrealistic resource expectations. We are solving that. When the Comptroller and Auditor General produced a report on the matter he revealed that there were 3,434 unopened beds in 1979–80. We have reduced that figure to 934 and hope to eliminate the problem.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister agree that it is disgraceful that there are still 1,000 beds that are not being used in the Health Service, at a time when the Government are encouraging private clinics, such as the Yorkshire clinic, which is near my constituency, to open and thus draw resources from the NHS? Does he agree that the Government's first priority should be to ensure a decent National Health Service for the use of all?

Mr. Clarke: It is a waste. It is as a result of poor planning. We are putting increased resources into the NHS. By next year we shall have increased spending on the NHS in real terms by 6 per cent. as compared with when we came into office. That is helping to eliminate the problem of wasted unopened beds in new hospitals.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today, including one with the President of Bangladesh.

Mr. Carlisle: In the light of the most welcome news from the Falklands, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should praise and give thanks for the skill, courage and sacrifice of the members of the task force who succeeded so brilliantly in an exercise that was fraught with hazard? Does she agree that it is a fine moment for our country? Does she further agree that it demonstrates that wherever British power can reach, nobody should embark upon aggression?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I entirely agree with him. We cannot say enough about how wonderful our Armed Forces and Merchant Marine have been. We salute them all. I hope, as my hon. Friend said, that we have once again restored Britain's dominance and let every nation know that British sovereign territory will be well and truly defended and that we shall never again be the victim of aggression.

Mr. Grimond: Does the welcome ceasefire apply only to hostilities in the Falkland Islands or to all hostilities with Argentina?

The Prime Minister: I shall have something to say about that in my statement. We are endeavouring to achieve a complete ceasefire with Argentina.

Mr. Walters: Now that the Argentine aggression has been so brilliantly and successfully dealt with, will my right hon. Friend turn her full attention to the Israeli aggression in Lebanon? Does she agree that it is intolerable that Israeli armed forces, in their determination to exterminate the Palestinians, should continue to devastate Beirut and slaughter thousands of civilians?

The Prime Minister: We have made clear to everyone, and to all countries, our horror at what has happened in the Lebanon, our insistence that Israeli forces withdraw and that Lebanon be free to continue her own life in her own way, within her own securely defended borders.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I do not wish to detract from the proud achievement of the task force in the Falkland Islands conflict, but will the Prime Minister now turn her attention to another serious problem facing Britain? Will she show the same determination as our boys demonstrated in the Falklands conflict with regard to unemployment? When will she vanquish the problem of 3 million unemployed?

The Prime Minister: We are addressing our minds to that very problem. Not only are we doing that here, but we did it at the economic conference at Versailles. So much depends on our continuing with policies to reduce inflation, to reduce the budget deficit, to ensure that new technology is introduced into industry, to ensure that wages are lower for the time being than the present rate of inflation and to ensure that unit costs are kept down. If we do all that, we shall be well on the way to being able to benefit from an increase in world trade.

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Powell: Is the Prime Minister aware that tomorrow 26,000 Welsh miners will be on strike in support of the National Health Service workers' 12 per cent. pay claim and that thousands of people in Wales will be marching in support of the health workers? Will she intervene to try to persuade the Minister responsible to have a joint agreement whereby the health workers receive the compassionate and caring treatment that a Labour Government would have shown?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has just spent about 40 minutes answering questions on the National Health Service. For my part, I find it very ironic indeed that, just when we are celebrating the victory of our Armed Forces, other people are on strike.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sad events in the Lebanon in recent weeks have clearly shown the impotence of United Nations peacekeeping forces and that when consideration is given to the security of British territory in the future that must be borne very much in mind?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is clear that those forces cannot be effective for peacekeeping in the Lebanon. The same happened in Cyprus. This means that we must continue to make our own arrangements to maintain our own security.

Mr. Lofthouse: In celebrating yesterday's events with the whole House and indeed the country, will the Prime Minister spare time today to give thought to the 35,000 widows whose total income is less than £40 per week and who have been brought into tax since the Government came to office?

The Prime Minister: We are all very conscious of the problems of those widows and we should like to reduce taxation, but we cannot do that so long as we have colossally increased expenditure. Therefore, we must keep an eye on expenditure as well.

Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the liberation of the Falkland Islands has shown that, although we must be grateful for international support and cooperation, which is always essential, this nation must always retain the freedom, resources and resolve to act independently in defence of the principles for which we stand?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. We must have the capacity to act independently. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need both the power to act and the will to see it through.

Mr. Foot: We shall have the opportunity to put further questions to the right hon. Lady about the Falkland Islands when she makes a fresh statement on the subject in a few minutes' time. Will she tell us now about the engagement for which I believe she is leaving tonight or tomorrow—the United Nation's special session on disarmament in New York? Does she agree that events both in the South Atlantic and in the Middle East make all the more necessary the effort to ensure that that disarmament conference is successful? Will she use all the strength of the British Government to try to get serious measures passed? Does she agree that the recent war, and particularly the use of certain weapons by the Argentines, make all the more necessary a concerted effort at the United Nations to stop the obscenity of traffic in arms, as a result of which some of our Service men were killed by weapons that we had sold to the Argentines?

The Prime Minister: I am not certain whether I shall be going to New York tomorrow, or possibly later, if it can be arranged. The disarmament conference is in no way a negotiating forum. Negotiations must be carried on elsewhere. I entirely agree that we should like to have security with a lower level of arms, but that lower level must be capable of being verified. The whole world is learning the lesson that unilateral disarmament leads to weakness and liability to attack by the strong, as it always has. Unilateral disarmament of all kinds leads to weakness and liability to be attacked on the part of the nation that undertakes it. Therefore, we need a proper balance of arms, which is what we are trying to obtain.

Mr. Kilfedder: As the victory in the South Atlantic was made possible by the supreme sacrifice made by our courageous Service men and merchant seamen, will the Prime Minister as quickly as possible promote a memorial to those gallant men, who epitomise all that is best in our nation?

The Prime Minister: Of course we shall consider that. I think that what they have achieved is their own best memorial. Indeed, none could better it.

Mr. Cryer: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cryer: When the Prime Minister visits the United Nations, will she bear in mind the magnificent demonstration by nearly 1 million people in the United States and by 250,000 people in this country against nuclear weapons? Will she bear in mind that millions of people are sick and tired of Government representatives talking about disarmament at the United Nations while constantly building up stockpiles of nuclear weapons, as the Government are doing with Trident? Does she agree that unilateral disarmament by this country would strengthen the United Nations non-proliferation treaty and set an example to the majority of the nations of the world that do not possess nuclear weapons and whom we do not wish to see imitate our possession of such weapons?

The Prime Minister: I have listened to all that, but the fact is that the two major nuclear powers have not gone to war against each other—because, I believe, nuclear weapons are achieving their purpose as a deterrent that makes the prospect of war too horrific. It is noteworthy that, since the last world war, there have been 140


conventional wars, fought with ordinary weapons, which are themselves horrific, and that nuclear weapons have been a deterrent to war. I therefore believe that we should keep them.

Mr. George Gardiner: In the light of today's marvellous news, will my right hon. Friend study the precedent set by the Prime Minister and the Monarch in May 1940 and consider the designation of a Sunday very soon as a national day of prayer and thanksgiving for our success in freeing the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Flannery: Give over. "Grovelling Gardiner."

The Prime Minister: Of course we shall consider that, but I believe that throughout our land this day and the coming Sunday everywhere there will be thanksgiving.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Lady give an absolute assurance that neither she nor No. 10 will in any way obstruct the promised inquiry into the events leading up to the invasion of the Falkland Islands and that the determination of the truth will be paramount, so that the British people may learn what actually happened, as against what the House was told happened?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I shall shortly be writing to the Leader of the Opposition about the proposed form of the inquiry. I am certain that it needs to go back far further than the events leading up to the conflict.

Mr. Latham: Did my right hon. Friend notice that when the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) listed the places where there had been CND marches and demonstrations he did not mention Moscow? Does my right hon. Friend draw any conclusions from that?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and I believe that I draw the same conclusion as my hon. Friend—that this is a free country in which people can march, but that to remain free we need sturdy and sure defences, including a nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Faulds: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be allowed to ask his question, because I hope to move on to the next business at 3.30 pm.

Mr. Faulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection. As British military abilities have once again rescued British politicians from their failures, will the right hon. Gentleman—[Laughter.] She likes that, she is the gentleman. Will the right hon. Lady contemplate today whether this is not the right time to offer the Argentines a reasonable involvement in the future of the Falkland Islands to prevent a continuing war on our naval and supply communications for the Falkland Islands?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Falkland Islands

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Falkland Islands.
Early this morning in Port Stanley, 74 days after the Falkland Islands were invaded, General Moore accepted from General Menendez the surrender of all the Argentine forces in East and West Falkland together with their arms and equipment. In a message to the Commander-in-Chief Fleet, General Moore reported:
The Falkland Islands are once more under the Government desired by their inhabitants. God Save the Queen.
General Menendez has surrendered some 11,000 men in Port Stanley and some 2,000 in West Falkland. In addition, we had already captured and were holding elsewhere on the islands 1,800 prisoners, making in all some 15,000 prisoners of war now in our hands.
The advance of our forces in the last few days is the culmination of a determined military effort to compel the Argentine Government to withdraw their forces from the Falkland Islands.
On the night of Friday 11 June, men of 42 and 45 Commandos and the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, supported by elements of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, mounted an attack on Argentine positions on Mount Harriet, Two Sisters and Mount Longdon. They secured all their objectives, and during the next day consolidated their positions in the face of continuing resistance.
I regret to inform the House that five Royal Marines, 18 Paratroopers and two Royal Engineers lost their lives in those engagements. Their families are being informed. Seventy-two Marines and Paratroopers were wounded. We have no details of Argentine casualties. Hundreds of prisoners and large quantities of equipment were taken in these operations. The land operations were supported by Harrier attacks and naval gunfire from ships of the task force which made a major contribution to the success of our troops. In the course of the bombardment, however, HMS "Glamorgan" was hit by enemy fire. We now know that 13 of the crew died in this attack or are missing.
Throughout Sunday 13 June, the 3rd Commando Brigade maintained pressure on the enemy from its newly secured forward positions. Meanwhile, men of the 5th Infantry Brigade undertook reconnaissance missions in preparation for the next phase of the operations. HMS "Hermes" flew her one-thousandth Sea Harrier mission since leaving the United Kingdom.
The Argentines mounted two air raids that day. The first was turned back by Harriers of the task force before it could reach the Falklands. In the second raid A4 aircraft made an unsuccessful bombing run and one Mirage aircraft was shot down.
During the night of Sunday 13 June the second phase of the operations commenced. The 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment secured Wireless Ridge and the 2nd Battalion the Scots Guards took Tumbledown Mountain by first light on Monday 14 June. The 1st/7th Gurkhas advanced on Mount William, and the Welsh Guards on Sapper Hill. At 2 pm London time large numbers of Argentine troops were reported to be retreating from Mount William, Sapper Hill and Moody Brook in the direction of Port Stanley.
British forces pressed forward to the outskirts of Port Stanley. Large numbers of Argentines threw down their weapons and surrendered.
At 4 o'clock the Argentine garrison indicated its willingness to talk. Orders were given to our forces to fire only in self-defence. Shortly before 5 o'clock a white flag appeared over Port Stanley.
Initial contact was made with the enemy by radio. By midnight General Moore and General Menendez were talking. The surrender of all the Argentine forces of East and West Falkland was agreed at 1 am today London time. Some of our forces are proceeding to West Falkland to organise the surrender of the Argentine forces there.
We are now tackling urgently the immense practical problems of dealing with the Argentine prisoners on the islands. The weather conditions are severe, permanent accommodation is very limited, and much of the temporary accommodation which we had hoped to use was lost when the "Atlantic Conveyer" was sunk on 25 May. We have already repatriated to Argentina almost 1,400 prisoners, and the further 15,000 now in our custody are substantially more than we had expected. With the help of the International Red Cross, we are taking urgent steps to safeguard these prisoners and hope to evacuate them as soon as possible from the islands, in accordance with our responsibilities under the Geneva Convention. This is a formidable task.
We have today sent to the Argentine Government, through the Swiss Government, a message seeking confirmation that Argentina, like Britain, considers all hostilities between us in the South Atlantic—and not only on the islands themselves—to be at an end. It is important that this should be established with clarity and without delay.
We must now bring life in the islands back to normal as quickly as possible, despite the difficult conditions and the onset of the Antarctic winter. Mines must be removed; the water supply in Stanley is not working and there will be other urgent tasks of repair and reconstruction.
Mr. Rex Hunt and members of the Islands Council at present in this country will return as soon as possible. Mr. Hunt will concentrate on civilian matters. General Moore will be responsible for military matters. They will in effect act as civil and military commissioners and will, of course, work in the closest co-operation.
After all that has been suffered it is too early to look much beyond the beginning of the return to normal life. In due course the islanders will be able to consider and express their views about the future. When the time is right we can discuss with them ways of giving their elected representatives an expanded role in the government of the islands.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The nominated ones?

The Prime Minister: We shall uphold our commitment to the security of the islands; if necessary, we shall do this alone. But I do not exclude the possibility of associating other countries with their security. Our purpose is that the Falkland Islands should never again be a victim of unprovoked aggression.
Recognising the need for economic development, I have asked Lord Shackleton to update his 1976 report on the economic potential of the islands. He has agreed to do this as a matter of urgency. I am most grateful to him.
The House will join me, Mr. Speaker, in expressing our deep sense of loss over those who have died, and our sorrow for their families. The final details will not become clear for a few days yet, but we know that some 250 British Service men and civilians have been killed. They died that others may live in freedom and justice.
The battle of the Falklands was a remarkable military operation, boldly planned, bravely executed, and brilliantly accomplished. We owe an enormous debt to the British forces and to the Merchant Marine. We honour them all. They have been supported by a people united in defence of our way of life and of our sovereign territory.

Mr. Michael Foot: The Opposition at once wish to join in the thanks and congratulations that the right hon. Lady has given to the Service men and their commanders on the way in which they have discharged their duties throughout these dangerous weeks. We wish that to be emphasised at the outset.
The relief that the House felt and expressed last night when it first heard the news derived partly from the belief that we had been able to avoid not merely the hideousness of a bloody battle at Port Stanley but also the consequences of such a battle. That sense of relief was rightly expressed, and we wish to express it once again.
Even so, as the right hon. Lady emphasised in her final remarks, there have been severe casualties for this country that affect some of our great naval ports such as Plymouth and Portsmouth. There have been severe casualties affecting other places as well. In addition, there have been severe casualties among the Argentine forces. I am sure that we are all concerned about them, too. However, the sense of relief is very great, and we are all grateful for the fact that the bloodshed is now coming to an end.
I hope that we shall have a further statement soon on the casualties when the right hon. Lady has received the further details to which she referred. In the meantime, we extend our deep sympathy to all the families who have suffered the consequences of the casualties and express our determination—I hope, the determination of the House of Commons—that proper ways should be found to assist those families and those who have been afflicted by what has happened.
I do not expect the right hon. Lady to deal now with questions about the future, nor do I think that this is the best time to do so. There is bound to be an interval during which we shall deal with the immediate position on the islands, and that interval is bound to mean that normal operations cannot be envisaged. However, it would be right for the right hon. Lady at an early date to express a view about the future. I do not say that she should describe the whole future, but she should give some commitments about it. In our view, it is not possible for the British Government to contemplate that over the years ahead they alone can deal with these matters.
The right hon. Lady said in her statement "I do not exclude the possibility of associating other countries with their security". That is a modest statement of the requirement. I believe that she will have to go considerably further than that, in the interests of the islanders and of the security of the islands. I do not believe that it is possible for the Government to exclude much greater consultations with other countries. Indeed, we are bound to do so under the resolutions that we have signed. I therefore hope that the Prime Minister will now give an absolute assurance that we shall be prepared to consult

other nations according to our commitments under the United Nations charter to ensure that we provide for future arrangements.
I hope that we shall not exclude the possibility of the trusteeship that was discussed earlier. [Interruption.] Those hon. Members who wish to exclude that possibility ought to look at some of the changes in the Government's policy that have occurred during this period. The more they examine them, the more I believe that justice will be seen in the case that we have persistently put throughout these discussions.
Even if the Prime Minister will not give a detailed commitment now, I hope that she will say that she intends to carry out to the full, in the spirit and the letter, the resolution that she and her Government proposed at the United Nations in the name of this country. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady is shaking her head, but it would be a breach of faith if she were to abandon that commitment. I therefore hope that she will reiterate our allegiance on these questions.
All these matters will later have to be examined afresh, including the investigation of how the original crisis arose. Much the best course for the Government is to recognise the commitment that they have made in these international obligations and to say that they will uphold them as determinedly as we have upheld the rights of British territory.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about our Armed Forces. We mourn the loss of those who were killed and we are dedicated to the cause for which they gave their lives.
As to the United Nations resolution, the withdrawal by the Argentines was not honoured and our forces had to go there because they would not withdraw. Indeed, they had to recover and recapture British territory. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those men risked their lives in any way to have a United Nations trusteeship. They risked their lives to defend British sovereign territory, the British way of life and the rights of British people to determine their own future.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister consider allowing the House a special opportunity to pay tribute to our forces after they have returned? I think that that would be appropriate.
Is the right hon. Lady aware that at lunch time the BBC carried allegedly authoritative reports about the form of inquiry in which she would invite the other party leaders to participate? However, she mentioned nothing about that in her statement. Without going into the form of that inquiry, will she give an undertaking that it will be strong enough to include not just the matters leading up to the invasion but such questions as the sale of arms to Argentina and the defence policy decisions that affect the equipment and operation of our Navy?

The Prime Minister: During Question Time, I referred to the form of inquiry and said that I would shortly be writing to Opposition leaders. I do not believe that the form of the inquiry should be anything like as wide as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, otherwise it would never report. I do not believe that it is the general wish to have the inquiry as wide as that. That is a totally different kind of review from the one on which I thought we were agreed.


However, I shall be writing shortly to the right hon. Gentleman about the matter. Surely today is a day for congratulation and celebration and not for post-mortems.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Exceptionally, I propose to allow questions on the statement to continue for another half an hour, which will be a very good run for the House.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House and the nation will have noted with particular approval the sentence in her statement that indicated that we shall not again allow the Falkland Islands to be the subject of unprovoked aggression? In the meantime, is it not possible to say something about the local inhabitants of Port Stanley and West Falkland? I am sure that many people would be grateful for information on that subject.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said about defending the Falkland Islands so that they are never again the victim of aggression. At present, information about the civilian population is sketchy because of appalling weather and the fact that there were only a few hours of daylight before I came to the House. Initial indications are that the islanders are thrilled to see our forces and that in general they are safe and well, but we have no further details.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Government be careful to ensure that nothing is done or said in the coming days that could be an obstacle to our securing, both in the Falkland Islands and in Britain, compensation and satisfaction for the loss and damage that have been suffered as a result of this unprovoked aggression?

The Prime Minister: I shall try to refrain from saying anything that will prejudice that, but I must point out that we are not seeking compensation. We went to recapture the islands, to restore British sovereignty, which had not been lost because of the invasion, and to restore British administration. That was our objective, and I believe that we have achieved it.

Dr. David Owen: I wish to express our congratulations to the right hon. Lady and sympathy to the relatives of those who were killed. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is not the intention to return all the Argentine military until Argentina has confirmed that all hostilities in the South Atlantic have ended? When considering the association that might be developed with other countries for the long-term development of the Falkland Islands, and before making any final decision—it is too early to reach a firm conclusion about how we should handle the future—will the right hon. Lady consult the United States of America, which has been one of our most loyal allies and which has great interest in the Organisation of American States?

The Prime Minister: It was precisely because we believed that we should not return all the prisoners of war until we were certain that we had achieved a cessation of hostilities with the mainland of Argentina that I said that "we hope" to evacuate the prisoners of war. We must send back a considerable number, but we should withhold some, especially the officers and commanders, until we have achieved a ceasefire with the mainland.
As to the long-term future, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we are talking about British sovereign territory and British people. Many people will be interested in the future of the islands, but we must consult the people and then make the best possible arrangements that we can for them. I recognise that that will need the friendliness of other States in the region. It would not be wise to go beyond that now.

Sir John Eden: Following the successful outcome of the campaign, which would not have been possible without the supreme valour displayed by our forces nor without the steady and resolute leadership shown from the start by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will she say whether, in attempting to tackle some of the enormous and immediate logistical problems, especially the shortage of water, it would be practicable to turn to Uruguay, Chile or other Latin American countries for help?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We wish to have help with the logistical problems from wherever we can get it, but few places are near and therefore we had to prepare for some of those matters in the supplies and provisions that we sent down with the task force. We shall be all right for water. If we cannot return some prisoners, we shall need some help with food and transport, but I believe that the United States of America will be prepared to help with some of those matters.

Mr. Tony Benn: Apart from the inquiry, will the Prime Minister publish the full text of all the exchanges that took place with the United Nations, Argentina and the Americans so that we may see what happened and a full analysis of the costs in life, equipment and money in this tragic and unnecessary war, which the world knows very well will not provide an answer to the problem of the future of the Falkland Islands? Does she agree that in the end there must be negotiations, and will she say with whom and when she will be ready to enter into such negotiations?

The Prime Minister: The texts of all the negotiations are not mine to publish. We entered into the negotiations in confidence and I do not believe in breaking a confidence. I do not intend to negotiate on the sovereignty of the islands in any way, except with those who live there. That is my fervent belief. The right hon. Gentleman called it an unnecessary war. Tragic it may have been, but may I point out to him that he would not enjoy the freedom of speech that he put to such excellent use unless people had been prepared to fight for it.

Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the nation owes this signal victory not only to the skill and courage of British forces but to her resolute leadership during the critical weeks? Is she further aware that the entire House will wish to be associated with the tribute that she paid to those who will not return from the South Atlantic? Will she associate us with her condolences to the families of those involved, whose grief the entire nation shares?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Every hon. Member would wish to pay tribute to those who lost their lives, to those who have been injured and to the families without whose support they could never have done such a wonderful job.

Mr. Michael English: Now that the war is almost over, will the right hon. Lady invite The Times to purchase the copyright of Oriana Fallaci's splendid interview with General Galtieri? It would be some recompense if The Times made such a purchase and presented the copyright to the British Government, because, after all, it took money from the Argentines to print 7,000 words of Argentine propaganda before most of our fellow citizens died.

The Prime Minister: That is not a matter for me. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's message will have been heard by those who are in possession of the copyright. I can say only that it was a remarkable interview by a very remarkable journalist.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Both I and the people of Northern Ireland salute the memory of those who gave their lives in defence of sovereign British territory and of freedom. I wish to remind the Prime Minister that at Question Time a few weeks ago I asked whether she abided by two principles—first, the right to defend sovereign British territory and, secondly, the upholding of the wishes of those who live in that territory. I congratulate her on the fact that in this instance she has been guided by those two principles, but I remind her that yesterday— [HON. MEMBERS: "Question".]—Ulster mourned its dead is another young police officer was carried to his grave in the same fight for freedom. I urge the Prime Minister to tell Mr. Haughey that the sovereignty of Northern Ireland cannot be challenged by him or by anyone else and that the majority of Ulster people will be allowed to decide their destiny.

The Prime Minister: I believe in both the principles enunciated by the hon. Gentleman. We shall continue to uphold them and I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the security forces, the police, the Armed Forces and the Ulster Defence Regiment, who have done wonderful things in Northern Ireland and who are upholding the law and liberties in the same way as those who went to the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I appreciate the Prime Minister's comments and satisfaction today, but does she agree with the view of Secretary Haig that a strictly military outcome cannot endure for all time?

The Prime Minister: I am a little at a loss about the question. We went to recapture what was ours. We had to do it by military means because the Argentines would not leave peacefully. We condemned their military adventurism. We were perfectly right to repossess what was already ours and to look after and defend British subjects. That is not a military solution. That is repossessing what we should never have lost.

Sir Bernard Braine: Leaving aside Gibraltar, where independence is specifically ruled out by the Treaty of Utrecht, is not it not the case that the option open to every British dependency since the war has been independence within the Commonwealth? That is enshrined in the United Nations charter and there is nothing in the charter about size and population. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend say whether, if the islanders choose independence, the British Government will be prepared, on their own, or with whatever friends

they can muster, to provide the necessary guarantees so that people nurtured in the British traditions of democracy and self-fulfilment may have it?

The Prime Minister: There are probably three choices within the British Commonwealth—independence, associated status, or self-government. A territory with as small a population as the Falklands would have to have its security guaranteed, whichever of the three it wished to follow. I think that it is too early to say what the islanders would wish to do. We shall discuss with them under what I would call the ordinary British right of self-determination.

Mr. George Robertson: Now that the hostilities are over, and we know how many of the British forces gave their lives in repossessing the Falkland Islands, will the Prime Minister consider the views of their relations about bringing the bodies back to Britain for burial, especially in the light of the distressing sight, for relations, of the inevitable mass burial at Goose Green and Darwin shown on television last night? If the relatives wish the bodies to be returnee to the United Kingdom, will she be prepared to arrange for that?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has raised this subject, and for his realisation that immediate burial is inevitable. Afterwards, under the normal traditional rules, these people receive a burial, usually locally, and the graves are looked after in perpetuity by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Before we decide what should be done in the case of deaths in the Falklands, we shall be considering the views of the relatives.

Mr. John Farr: Apart from my expression of admiration for the sacrifices of the three Services, may I ask right hon. Friend whether she can confirm the tremendous price paid by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary? The three Armed Services are frequently mentioned, but the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, through "Sir Tristram" and "Sir Galahad", as two examples, has paid a tremendous price. What it has done for the country should be recognised from the top.

The Prime Minister: The Royal Fleet Auxiliary paid a tremendous price, but neither my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) nor I would wish to single out any particular sacrifice. Each and every one contributed to the successful accomplishment of our objectives. We mourn each and every one in the same way as any other.

Mr. George Foulkes: Apart from the appalling loss of life, can the Prime Minister tell us how and when the Government propose to tell the House of the full cost of the operation, the cost of garrisoning and maintaining the islands in perpetuity, and what increases in taxes or cuts in social and other services will be necessary to pay for all these costs?

The Prime Minister: Of course we shall tell the House. Under the ordinary rules of Supply expenditure, we shall have to tell the House. I hope that the hon. Member thinks that the money spent is worthwhile.

Mr. Keith Speed: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the arrangements for the Argentine surrender include the surrender of the Argentine mission on Southern Thule, in the South Sandwich group, which


has been illegally occupied by Argentine troops since 1976? As I learnt when I was in the Falkland Islands, that is a source of continuing concern to the people who live there.

The Prime Minister: We would wish to arrange for the surrender of not only the Argentines in the Falkland Islands but any Argentines left on the dependencies as well, including Southern Thule.

Mr. Frank Allaun: As the Prime Minister has told an American television audience that she will retain aircraft, Rapiers, submarines and ships in the South Atlantic, will she make some estimate, for our benefit, of how that will be paid for by the British people?

The Prime Minister: If necessary, we have to defend the Falkland Islands alone. We are talking about the lives of British subjects who expect to have the same rights as those that we enjoy. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) would wish them to have any less. It will mean allocating some of our defence equipment to that region, but the NATO defences are not wholly exclusive in the sense that the defence of NATO is affected by what goes on beyond its borders. I should be amazed if the hon. Gentleman, who also makes good use of his freedom, would begrudge the cash necessary, and thereby deny it to those people.

Mr. Alan Clark: Did the Prime Minister note the comment of a captain in the 2nd Parachute Battalion after the liberation of Goose Green that we were fighting not for principles but for people? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who have sacrificed their lives in these battles, besides the brilliant achievements, to which tribute has already been paid, made that sacrifice—this is a source of pride to the whole country—so that British families shall be delivered from oppression no matter how far away or how few in number they may be?

The Prime Minister: We do our best to uphold the beliefs spoken of by my hon. Friend. I agree with the person who said in Goose Green that we were fighting for people, but people must have principles by which to live. They have to be governed by fair principles because liberty and justice are the only things that give life its dignity and meaning. We shall try to uphold those on the part of our citizens wherever they look to us for their defence.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: Does the Prime Minister agree about the insensitivity of the statement made—I am not sure who made it—about burial in a mass grave of 21 of those who died in the Falklands? Does she also agree that, even if the bodies are reburied dirty, some assistance should be given to the families of those Service men who died there, bearing in mind that the families have 8,000 miles to travel if they want to pay tribute to their relatives who have died in this conflict?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If those Service men find their permanent resting place in the Falklands in a Commonwealth grave, it is customary to pay for the families to go to see the grave.

Sir Anthony Royle: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that arrangements will be made to look after the families of the Chinese citizens from Hong Kong who were killed in the attack at Bluff Cove?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. We recognise that we also have a duty to those people, because they died in serving our cause. We shall make arrangements accordingly.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Does the Prime Minister's statement today mean that under her kind of leadership in the future there will be no participatory role for a saner and more civilised Argentine Government in any international system for guaranteeing the peace in that part of the South Atlantic? Is it not unrealistic, in view of the geographical factors, to think that we can carry on as a colonial Power on those distant shores?

The Prime Minister: This is British sovereign territory.

Mr. Bidwell: We know that.

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman knows that. I am amazed at how he manages to ignore it in his every question. This is British sovereign territory and they are British people. We need the friendliness of neighbouring States. We do not negotiate sovereignty with them.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that resolution 502 of the Security Council was implemented not by the United Nations but by the valour and courage of Her Majesty's Forces and by the determination of my right hon. Friend herself? Is there not a lesson there for the whole House to learn?

The Prime Minister: I agree wholly with what my hon. Friend has said. No attempt was made by the Argentines to implement resolution 502.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the Prime Minister not close her mind completely to some discussion, under the auspices of the United Nations, on the ultimate sovereignty of the islands? Is it not a profound anachronism in 1982 for any State to have sovereign territory 8,000 miles away? Did the Prime Minister weigh the question of sovereignty when, together with the United States of America, she cleared out 1,400 people—who were not given the chance to say a word—from Diego Garcia to make it into a nuclear base? Is it not a fact that the new Government in Mauritius are demanding that the Americans get off that island and that the 1,400 people return? Is not the question of sovereignty at the basis of all that? Does it not have the seeds of future conflict if we do not act democratically? What would the right hon. Lady say if a powerful Argentina had taken the Shetland Lands? Would we tolerate that?

The Prime Minister: There is one principle—that territorial sovereignty be respected.

Mr. Flannery: Not in Diego Garcia.

The Prime Minister: Diego Garcia was taken by arrangement with Mauritius. A sum of £3 million in compensation was taken by arrangement and agreement, fully in accordance with the law. We either uphold territorial sovereignty and international law or we have international anarchy.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that nobody in the House could rise to speak without paying tribute to probably the greatest victory in the history of an army at the end of an 8,000 mile supply line? That achievement is unbelievable. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that she will resist the siren voices of politicians on both sides of the House or among the media, and that she will make no further statement about the future of the Falkland Islands for at least six months? The dust must be allowed to settle. We must get the people back there. Let us not have the Government permanently being asked what they are doing about the future of the islands. There must be peace there first.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that this was a great military victory that will go down in the history books. I believe that the brilliance with which it was planned and executed is unequalled. It will take some considerable time for the islanders to settle down, for us to see what development possibilities there are, and to get security for the Falkland Islands. I believe that it will take at least six months. I should not be surprised if it took a good deal longer.

Mr. David Winnick: Since this country had the support of most international opinion in resisting aggression, is it not equally important to keep the same support on the question of the future of the Falkland Islands? Why is the Prime Minister ruling out completely the possibility of United Nations trusteeship? Can there be no change in the territorial status of the Falkland Islands?

The Prime Minister: The only change in the territorial status of the Falkland Islands that one would consider would be one arranged in conjunction and discussion with the people of the Falkland Islands. That is the way that we have gone about looking after those many territories and colonies that have previously been within our own trusteeship. I believe that that is the way that we should continue to act.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will full provision be made from public funds for those who have lost their homes, their stock-in-trade and their personal possessions in the conflict in a more full and generous manner than the war damage compensation—to which the Falkland Islanders contributed generously in taxation during the war—was paid to persons in the United Kingdom who lost their homes or property through enemy action?

The Prime Minister: May I look at that question, Mr. Speaker, before answering? I am not certain what insurance arrangements were made by the Falkland Islanders and how they would operate in conjunction with war damage. It is our intention to be generous in these matters.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I have not heard anything about the Gurkhas. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether any of them lost their lives or were wounded? Will we treat the Gurkhas, who serve for less pay than our men, as generously as we shall treat our own people?

The Prime Minister: I mentioned the Gurkhas. The 1st/7th Gurkhas advanced on Mount William and played a prominent part in the final, crucial stages of the battle.

We do not yet have full casualty lists, and that is why I have not been able to give the figures. I gladly pay full tribute to those excellent fighting men the Gurkhas.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend consider requesting the Government of the United States of America to assist with the return of Argentine prisoners of war to Argentina in view of the enormous numbers involved?

The Prime Minister: We shall have to get help if necessary. First, I want to know whether we can achieve a full cessation of hostilities with the mainland. We have a number of our own ships there. I believe that we could possibly get some of them back faster in our own ships than we could by either chartering ships or securing ships from other nations because of the time that it would take to get there. We might require help with something like Hercules aircraft.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Can the Prime Minister say whether, since the Argentine invasion, the British Government requested from the American Government, on a purchase or lease basis, some of the aerial reconnaissance aircraft, the AWACS?

The Prime Minister: I do not give details of help received from the Government of the United States of America. I can say only that it has been splendid. I believe that we have had everything that we have asked for. AWACS aircraft need somewhere to land, and we do not have anywhere.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the task force, the Services and our maritime marine have proved themselves to be the finest and the most professional in the world as well as being the most compassionate, that her leadership has inspired our nation and that her assurance about the long-term security of the Falkland Islands is much appreciated because of the growing strategic importance of that area to the peace of the world?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Falkland Islands have a strategic importance, not only in shipping terms because of the shipping lanes but because they are the entrance to the Antarctic, which I believe will become more important. I agree with my hon. Friend about our Armed Forces. Their professionalism has been remarked upon wherever they serve in the world.

Mr. Foot: Will fresh representations now be made about the three British journalists who were detained at the beginning of the incident? They were engaged in carrying out their proper duties. There may also be some British prisoners who will be part of the discussions. In the light of the right hon. Lady's replies about resolution 502 and any participation of the United Nations, is it not a fact that, despite the great military achievement—everybody acknowledges that—we had considerable international support, both from the United States of America and from other countries, at the United Nations and in practical terms?
Were we not glad enough to have that support when we were dealing with some of the problems? Does not the Prime Minister recognise that that international support could be needed in future? Does she accept that we shall have to go to the United Nations and argue our case in the


coming months? Is she not, therefore, unwise to resist that approach to the problem? She will have to return to it in the end, and she might as well acknowledge that now.

The Prime Minister: I have no further news about the three journalists. Representations are made through the Swiss embassy, which represents our interests in Argentina. We shall, of course, make fresh inquiries. There are also a few of our British prisoners of war. We hope that they will be returned, as we have returned so many Argentine prisoners of war. The earlier prisoners from the Falklands were repatriated to this country.
I repeat that resolution 502 was not honoured by the Argentines. We have had to secure the withdrawal without resolution 502. Because it was not honoured, we do not need to negotiate in any way with the United Nations or anyone else about British sovereignty of the islands. I make that absolutely clear. For years, under the non-self-governing territories article of the United Nations charter, we have reported about the increasing provision for representation of the people in the government of their own territory. That we shall continue to do.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady will have to speak in a different tone if she is to have any successful discussions in New York and elsewhere in the coming months. The right hon. Lady continues to miss the point about resolution 502. Partly because of the passage of that resolution, we received material military and other support from the Americans. Partly because of the passage of that resolution, we obtained economic support from elsewhere. For the right hon. Lady to suggest that she does not need international support to solve the problem is an absurdity and will be proved to be so in the months ahead.

The Prime Minister: As I did not say that, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly withdraw his remarks?

Lebanon (Israeli Action)

Mr. Ernie Ross: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat to world peace posed by the continued aggression and occupation by Israeli military forces in Southern Lebanon.
Having listened to the reasons why you, Mr. Speaker, refused previous applications, I have five reasons why the House should consider this matter. The matter is specific because of Israel's continued refusal to accept United Nations Security Council resolutions 508 and 509 and the threat posed to world peace in that the Israelis are denying the United Nations its role as a world organisation.
The matter is specific because of the exclusion of persons other than Israeli personnel from occupied Lebanon, particularly of the media and journalists. That must cause the House concern about the treatment of persons in the area. Most important is the specific consideration that the House should give to the announcement by the Soviet Union, reported in today's press, which makes it clear that the Soviet Union considers the Israeli aggression to be within the framework of strategic co-operation between Israel and the United States.
The Soviet Union has reminded the Israeli Government that the Middle East lies in close proximity to the Soviet Union's southern borders and that developments there cannot help but affect USSR interests. That must worry all hon. Members.
It is important to have a debate in the House to ensure that the propaganda by Israeli Ministers is seen as a threat to peace. It could easily lead to Western Governments misreading the gravity of the situation in Beirut. The Israeli Government yesterday claimed that they had control of the airport, when clearly they had not. The claim today is that the Palestinian leadership has taken refuge in an embassy. That suggests that all is over and contained. The Palestine Liberation Organisation denies that emphatically. Yesterday I spoke twice to colleagues and friends in Beirut and they deny the latest claims.
The matter is important because of our association with the Common Market. The EEC decision to postpone the $40 million financial protocol for Israel is based on Israel's continued occupation of Southern Lebanon. The EEC raised the issue with Israel in relation to facilities for the media as well. It is right for the House to consider these matters urgently.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would make an application under Standing Order No. 9 to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat to world peace posed by the continued aggression and occupation by Israeli military forces in Southern Lebanon.
As the House knows, I dealt with a similar application yesterday afternoon dealing with the same crisis in the Middle East.
The House knows that under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in


the Order but to give no reason for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the hon. Member's representations, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 6326/82 concerning proposals to implement the common market in fishery products contained in Council Regulation 3796/81, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Squatters

Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the provisions of section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 by making it an offence for a trespasser to fail to leave premises in the ownership of a local authority when the authority certifies that the premises are ready for letting or sale and requests the trespasser to leave; and for related purposes.
In general, trespassing is not a criminal offence in this country. People who unlawfully move into premises that they have no title to occupy are not, therefore, committing a criminal offence. The owner of the premises or anyone else legally entitled to them has to use civil processes to recover possession.
In 1977 Parliament decided that some kinds of squatting should become a criminal offence. If a person occupies premises as a resident and a squatter moves in, the squatter is committing a criminal offence if he does not get out when the lawful occupier asks him to.
When the Criminal Law Act was going through the House in 1977 there was a lot of discussion about how far we should extend criminality in such a situation. In the end we extended it to cover the case where a local authority or housing association has awarded a tenancy to someone but where the tenant has not yet moved in, provided that the landlord gives a certificate to say that the tenant has been authorised to occupy.
During those debates I argued that we were leaving uncovered an important situation—where a local authority has done work or, a place, spent a lot of money on it and is ready to let it but where no one has actually been offered or accepted the tenancy and squatters move in at that moment. The purpose of my Bill is to cover that case.
In many inner city areas a large part of local authority new housing provision these days takes the form of buying old properties and modernising them. T"his normally is preferable to the old practice of demolishing whole streets and erecting council estates. Very satisfactory accommodation can be provided by modernising old properties.
Any local authority housing department engaged on this work knows that the dangerous time comes when the work has been completed, or nearly so, but before the tenancy has been allocated. Squatters who, in many inner city areas, certainly in mine, are well organised can move in during this time. They commit no offence merely by occupying the premises and even if they commit criminal damage by breaking in, that does not make their continued occupation of the premises an offence.
The local authority cannot therefore call in the police to eject the squatters. It must go to the county court to get a possession order. That takes a considerable time. A few years ago the courts introduced an expedited procedure for this process, but it still normally takes many weeks for the average council to get its order. Assuming that the squatters do not immediately move out, it then takes some more time to get the court bailiffs to come to eject them. The squatters are still committing no offence by staying put, even after the possession order has been given against them. My Bill would correct that point, too.
Normally the squatters, who know the ropes, leave just before the bailiffs arrive. This process is time-consuming and costly. Under the expedited procedure the local authority cannot sue for damages. It can get an order


covering the court and the bailiffs' costs but no more. But in any case it is normally quite impossible to recover any money from squatters without disproportionate effort and cost. There is also the loss in rent and rates during the period when the premises are denied to legitimate tenants.
Then there is the question of damage. Few squatters treat the place they occupy as if it were their own, for the very good reason that it is not. It is not uncommon for a council to have to spend a great deal more money putting the premises back into the state they had been got to when the squatters moved in.
There are, no doubt, some hon. Members who would be prepared to make all unlawful occupation of residential premises an offence, but the tradition of English law that, except in aggravated circumstances, trespassing should not be an offence is well ingrained in at least lawyers' minds.
The question is whether we got the line right in 1977 in distinguishing between those situations that should entail criminal proceedings and those that should not. I did not think in 1977 that we got it right and I do not think so now. Great cost to the public purse is caused by the abuse I have described. Great misery is caused by the delay in getting rehabilitated property into the hands of legitimate tenants who may have been waiting for years for a decent place.
I recollect a place in Matilda Street in my constituency where the GLC had a house ready for sale. The squatters who moved into that place were actually two foreign students over here from France for a holiday. The international student and squatter grapevine had told them where to look. They stayed there for the few weeks' vacation that they wanted and then moved out. The police were powerless to act.
At the beginning of this year a group of houses in Liverpool Road in Islington were due to be formally opened after modernisation at great expense. The night before the formal opening was due, squatters, who had no doubt been monitoring progress, moved into the very flat where the opening was due to be held. It took months to get them out, even by the expedited procedure. Neither of the two flats in that house could be let during those months. Genuine Islington residents, old people needing to move to ground floor accommodation or young couples waiting for their first homes, were denied accommodation

which their rates and taxes had paid for. The squatters had had the use of a fully modernised place for months for absolutely nothing.
I want to stress that my Bill would not cover squatting in old property waiting to be modernised. It would cover only property that the local authority certifies is ready for occupation or for sale. It uses the procedures that Parliament has adopted under the 1977 Act. The procedure of allowing the criminality to be triggered by the local authority making a certificate follows exactly the procedure adopted in the 1977 Act.
Of course, some local authorities might not choose to use the procedure. The choice would be theirs. In the case of the present Islington borough council, which has taken leave of its senses on many things, I can well believe that it would not choose to use the new law. Just recently Islington council has decided to take a large block of flats and hand it over to the 20 or so squatters who are now occupying it, despite the fact that there are legal tenants in the block whose lives have been made a misery in recent months by those very squatters. I refer to Charles Rowan House in Finsbury, a block which some of us struggled for years to get into council hands from the Metropolitan Police so that it could relieve the desperate shortage of accommodation in the area.
It is monstrous that squatters should be able to deny accommodation to genuine residents in the way that they can now. My Bill would bring some relief against a particularly serious form of that abuse. I ask the House to give leave for its introduction so that I can discuss the matter with Home Office and Environment Department Ministers with a view to legislation reaching the statute book, if not this year, perhaps next Session.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. David Alton, Mr. John Cartwright and Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.

SQUATTERS

Mr. George Cunningham accordingly presented a Bill to extend the provisions of section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 by making it an offence for a trespasser to fail to leave premises in the ownership of a local authority when the authority certifies that the premises are ready for letting or sale and requests the trespasser to leave; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 July and to be printed. [Bill 141].

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 9 June 1982]

[MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clause 2

GENERAL OR PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF DIRECT RULE

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. At this stage could you help the Committee or could help be brought to the Committee by means of a point of order? You will recollect that at the last sitting of the Committee it was disclosed by the Secretary of State that, partly in response to the wishes of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) on the Opposition Front Bench, it was his intention to table amendments to clause 2.
I do not think that anyone who heard that debate would be in any doubt as to the importance of those amendments. One of the reasons that was in mind—I do not claim that it was the sole reason, but at least it was a reason that was mentioned in the course of the debate before the Committee last rose for doing so at the time when it did—was that it might be possible for the Committee to have before it at any rate an indication of what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind.
One appreciates that since the Question that you are about to propose, Mr. Weatherill, is that clause 2 stand part, it would not technically have been possible, even with the swiftest drafting and tabling in the world, for the right hon. Gentleman's amendments to be actually before the Committee. Foreseeing that, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) at the end of last week—I trust that the message was conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman—suggested that it would be helpful to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman could circulate in some form the amendments that he had in mind, a procedure which is not unknown in circumstances of this kind. Unfortunately, that has not apparently been the case. Therefore, we face the difficulty, in entering upon the debate on the Question that the clause stand part, that for many hon. Members the purport of the clause will be substantially, if not radically, altered by amendments of which we have no knowledge.
You may feel that in these circumstances—and I am using the point of order in order to address through you, Mr. Weatherill, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—it would be helpful if at the outset of this debate, even if nothing can be made available in writing, the Secretary of State indicated the lines on which he was proposing to introduce amendments to this clause at a later stage. Quite obviously the arguments on the clause as it stands, and the decisions on the clause as it stands, are bound to be influenced by knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman's intention.
I would have thought that that would be a course welcomed by, and helpful to, the right hon. Member for Mansfield. So, I put this point to you, Mr. Weatherill, as

a point of order—I hope at the right stage—that without guidance upon the future of the clause it is really impracticable for the Committee to debate it in any rational way

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill, and in reply to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I am quite happy to meet the convenience of the Committee by making my "stand part" speech at the start of the debate if that would help the Committee. Of course, I would then be prepared to reply briefly at the end if that were considered necessary.
I must tell the Committee that I am still considering the amendment that I suggested I might table on Report I do not think by any stretch of the imagination that this amendment has the far-reaching consequences that the right hon. Gentleman is now seeking to give to it; but, if it would help the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee for me to make my speech at this stage of the "clause stand part" debate, I am quite prepared to do so. It would be rather unusual, but I am glad to do anything I can to help the Committee.

Mr. John Farr: Further to that point of order Mr. Weatherill, I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for indicating how, with his usual co-operative and helpful attitude, he can help the Committee. His suggestion would be ideal and helpful, but it has one drawback. It is that the debate we have had on clause 2 so far has been minute; it has been very short compared with some of the other debates. Much of the substance of the clause was not covered by the two groups of amendments so far discussed. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that the second group of amendments, which were moved at about 6.30 last Thursday morning by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), were really only formally moved. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman nods his head in assent. After the formal moving, the Committee proceeded to debate the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill".
My fear is that if we accept the suggestions of the Secretary of State it could mean that we might not have the benefit of my tight hon. Friend replying to some of the points that many of us have not had the chance to discuss since Wednesday night and Thursday morning. A number of us tried unsuccessfully to get in on clause 2. In our humble way we had poor, inadequate but nevertheless meaningful speeches to make; we did not have the opportunity to make them. If I am successful in catching your eye, Mr. Weatherill, as I hope I shall be, when we get to the debate on clause 2 stand part, I have quite a number of questions that I would like answered.
Therefore, the only drawback to the co-operative suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that it might prevent him from dealing with the points that will no doubt be raised behind him later during the clause 2 stand part debate. Therefore, if he has an arrangement whereby he could give us some guidance at the outset—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I thought that I had heard the Secretary of State say that he proposed to make his opening speech on clause stand part and then at the end


answer those points that had been raised during the debate. I do not think that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) need be concerned.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. For some of us it is not so important at this time to hear a speech from the Secretary of State as to hear the content of his proposed amendment. We take a different view from him. We believe that this radically alters the proposition that we negotiated with him in good faith—namely, that there are two ways whereby rolling devolution can commence and continue, and that is by 50 per cent. plus 1 if it is cross-community support—to use the term that he used and the term that has been used in this debate—and 70 per cent. That is what we believed was in the Secretary of State's mind. We were very surprised and felt conned—and that was a term that I used in my speech—when we discovered that the Secretary of State was prepared to accept an amendment. I refer to column 235 of Hansard of 9 June, in which the right hon. Gentleman—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) but he is now seeking to go back on a debate that we had last week. We cannot go back. The Question was put last Thursday morning "That the clause stand part of the Bill". We cannot go back on what went before that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not trying to go back. The Secretary of State has told us that he is to table an amendment that affects clause 2 and goes to the very heart of the debate on clause 2 stand part. I cannot adequately discuss the Question that clause 2 stand part until I know what radical change this amendment will make. I am not trying to go back, but I am reminding you, Mr. Weatherill, and the Committee that the Secretary of State said that he accepted the thrust of the argument of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is looking forward to knowing what this amendment will do. I am looking forward to it, and it would help us considerably to discuss this issue properly and in the way it ought to be discussed, if we knew what change will be made through the amendment.

The Chairman: That is exactly what the Secretary of State said he was proposing to do. I do not think that any further points of order arise on this matter.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. If I might be permitted to make a point, the Secretary of State has attempted to move in the direction of a suggestion that I put to his private office on Friday morning. Could I suggest that this is rather different from an indication from a Minister in charge of a Bill that he is prepared, having listened to the debate, to introduce an amendment on Report? This is rather the other way round. The Secretary of State apparently at a very early stage—perhaps in collusion with certain other right hon. Gentlemen—made up his mind to introduce an amendment for which there seemed to be no demand in the Committee. The Committee had never suggested any such amendment. We have not yet had the full explanation as to where the suggestion came from originally.
The second point I want to make is that I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that,

far from its being, as the Secretary of State seemed to suggest, an insignificant amendment, it is so radical that it alters our approach not just to clause 2 but to the entire Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the phrase that he used, and that he will therefore feel obliged to go into his forecast and prophecy of what is likely to appear in the amendment rather more fully than he would otherwise have done.
While we can all appreciate that it might be too much to expect the draftsman to produce a detailed draft of the amendment at this stage, what is important—and I hope the Committee will agree with me—is that the Secretary of State should indicate what is in his mind, what the object of the amendment is and what his intentions are.

The Chairman: Order. The Committee should leave the matter there. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was corrct in saying that there was no way in which the proposed amendment could be tabled before we moved to the Question that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. When the Secretary of State speaks, we shall hear exactly what he proposes.

Question proposed [9 June], That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.

Mr. John Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Since we last met, there have been suggestions in the media that we might, presumably with the Opposition's concurrence, be faced with a timetable motion on the Bill. It is not my intention to argue the merits or otherwise of such a move by the Government at this stage, but it would be helpful to those of us who are preparing speeches on the various clauses—in particular, everything from the current clause stand part debate onwards—for the Secretary of State to give us some idea of how he will be presenting the motion so that we know what areas of the Bill we are likely—

The Chairman: Order. That is a completely hypothetical question. It cannot possibly be answered. No point of order can arise on such a matter.

Mr. Nick Budgen: May I, through you, Mr. Weatherill, ask that the Secretary of State be allowed the widest possible discretion in answering the clause stand part debate? Yesterday we had the good fortune to see a report in The Guardian to the effect that the Secretary of State had obtained the unofficial understanding of enough Labour Members to ensure the passing of a guillotine motion. If that is so—

The Chairman: Order. Reports in The Guardian have nothing to do with the Committee.

Mr. Prior: Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has said, I believe that we have already had a detailed discussion on clause 2. Therefore, I wish only to raise several general points.
Let me begin by reminding the Committee of what clause 2 seeks to achieve. It provides for the general or partial suspension of direct rule under the 1974 Act and the corresponding full or partial devolution. It gives Her Majesty power to do that at any time after proposals from the Assembly have been laid before Parliament. Such proposals will be debated in Parliament, in the light of which the Government will decide whether to recommend to Her Majesty the making of a devolution order.
That is well established and it should be equally clear to the Committee that subsection (2) gives Parliament full control over devolution by providing that no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make either a full or partial devolution order unless a draft of that order has been approved by affirmative resolution in each House.
The Government have always attached the greatest importance to that provision. I am sure that the Committee would not wish it to be otherwise. Thus, when I explained during the debate on clause 1(4) that I did not believe that it would be right to amend clause 1(4) (a) but that I would nevertheless consider amending clause 2, I was saying nothing that is not already implicit in the Bill as it is now drafted. Nor was I saying anything that the Government have not said many times before.
I wish to make it clear beyond peradventure that there can be no question of a devolution order being made unless the provisions of that order, which will require the approval of each House of Parliament by affirmative resolution, are likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community.
Although I was flattered to be told by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that my modest remarks on clause 1(4) constituted an "extraordinarily valuable speech", and although I was dismayed to hear the same remarks described by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) as a "breach of faith", nothing I said then and nothing that I will say today should come as the slightest surprise to those who have followed what the Government have said about the test that must be applied to any proposal for a return of devolved government to Northern Ireland. We have always emphasised that the ultimate test for any devolution proposals is simply whether those proposals can command widespread acceptance throughout the community.
We have never suggested that the approval of 70 per cent. of the Assembly can be a substitute for such an acceptance. The figure of 70 per cent. is, as I explained during our discussion of clause 1(4), designed to ensure that any proposals that enjoy that degree of support in the Assembly are acceptable to both sides of the Northern Ireland community. As the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) recognises, it might be possible for 70 per cent. to be achieved for proposals that do not meet that criterion.
Therefore, I say again that the 70 per cent. support for any proposals simply guarantees that they will be sent to the Secretary of State, who in turn will lay them before Parliament. At that point the proposals will be debated and the Government will have to give a clear view on whether those proposals meet the essential criterion of acceptability to both sides of the community.
Paragraph 42 of the White Paper, which I have already quoted, is quite clear on this point. It says:
The crucial requirement is that the Assembly's proposals should be likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community: in forming a judgment on this the Government would only consider a proposal to command sufficiently widespread acceptance if it appeared to be acceptable to both sides of the community. If it met this criterion the Government would ask Parliament to approve whatever arrangements were proposed and to transfer powers so that devolved government could be restored.
I said the same thing during the debate on the White Paper on 28 April:
If 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly agreed on devolution proposals, I would be required to lay those proposals before Parliament, where they would be debated. The

Government would give their view on whether the scheme was acceptable to both sides of the community. If Parliament approved the arrangements, devolution would be effected by Order in Council."—[Official Report, 28 April 1982; Vol. 22, c. 859.]
On Second Reading I said:
It is important to be clear that 70 per cent. for any proposals guarantees that they will be sent to the Secretary of State who will lay them before Parliament. At that point the proposals will be debated and the Government would have to give a clear view on whether those proposals met the essential criterion of acceptability to both sides of the community. If that criterion were met, the Government would ask Parliament to approve the Assembly's recommendations so that devolved Government could be restored."—[Official Report, 10 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 475.]
On three separate occasions I made the Government's views clear. I do not understand where the problem has arisen.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: There is a slight difference between the words that the Secretary of State has just used and those in the White Paper. The White Paper says:
acceptable to both sides of the community
A moment ago my right hon. Friend used the words:
widespread acceptance throughout the community".
There is a marked variation in the emphasis in those words. It seems to me—perhaps I misunderstand my right hon. Friend—that he is now allowing the criterion to be drawn in a looser way that would enable the 70 per cent., as seen in the White Paper, no longer to be the obstacle that it has been to some, at least, who felt that it would prove to be an obstacle that would defeat any attempts to devolve powers to the Assembly.

Mr. Prior: I do not want to go back over clause 1, but if my hon. Friend looks at clause 1(4)(b) he will see:
the proposals have the support of a majority of those members and the Secretary of State has notified the Assembly that he is satisfied that the substance of the proposals is likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community.
That means that if one has more than 50 per cent.—50 per cent. plus one—while it would then be a matter for the Secretary of State to notify the Assembly that he is satisfied, it softens the 70 per cent.
What I have been trying to do all the time—and there should be no doubt or ambiguity about the matter—is to enable the House to recognise that the 70 per cent. Will provide cross-community support or widespread acceptance throughout the community. It is a target to be aimed at and, I hope, achieved. One does not know how elections will go, but if there were no widespread acceptance throughout the community or it did not have cross-community support—one can use either set of words here, except that we have to use the same words throughout the Bill—it simply would not have the political stability which I and, I am sure, the Committee would regard as necessary if the scheme is to succeed.
5 pm
So my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) should not read any differences into my words and the words that I quoted from paragraph 42 of the White Paper or the wording that I used in the Second Reading debate. Because I felt that there might be some ambiguity, and because that was pointed out to me very forcibly by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) and the right hon. Member for Mansfield, I said that I would see whether there was some way of making certain that the principles set out in the White Paper, which


are implicit in the Bill, should be made even clearer on the face of the Bill. I am still considering the matter. I thought that it would be quite wrong to make an amendment to clause 4(1)(a) or (b), but that it might be possible—I put it no stronger—to do something in clause 2 to help to strengthen the provision. The House would want to be assured that either it or the Secretary of State could be satisfied that there was widespread acceptance throughout the community.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State may remember that on 9 June in this House I referred to a conversation that we had at a conference between my party and the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, the Earl of Gowrie. I quoted the Earl of Gowrie as saying that
the Government had told the SDLP that it may not be included in the 70 per cent.
I said:
 I see that the Secretary of State agrees with that."—[Official Report, 9 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 246.]
If the SDLP is not in that 70 per cent. vote, will he still look on it as representing both sides of the community, provided that there is Roman Catholic participation in it?

Mr. Prior: I shall say to the hon. Genleman exactly what I said to the SDLP, and that is that I am not guaranteeing the SDLP or any other group automatic provision within any Executive or Government that could be formed. That does not lie within my power. I do not know how the election will turn out. I told the SDLP that it could not have an automatic guarantee. It will be for this House and the parties themselves to achieve widespread acceptance across the community. Widespread acceptance means both sides of the community, but it does not necessarily mean any particular party across the community.
This is one of our problems in trying to draft an amendment that could help to strengthen the position of the House, as it would be at that time—and certainly the position of the Secretary of State in trying to advise the House, when it comes to an Order in Council—about what would be widespread acceptance at that time.

Mr. Clive Soley: Surely, part of the problem is the recognition by the Government, and certainly by the Opposition, that we cannot predict future elections. Therefore, it is impossible to give a clear answer to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). There is recognition in the White Paper and elsewhere that, whether we like it or not, there are two different senses of identity in Northern Ireland. There is the cross-community support that we are referring to. It is the identity of the national interest. It is not just about who wins which election or who has a veto thereafter.

Mr. Prior: I accept what the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) says. While he was speaking, I had a look at paragraph 42 of the White Paper. It said:
it is for the Assembly to determine how, within the new arrangements, executive and legislative powers should be exercised. The crucial requirement is that the Assembly's proposals should be likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community: in forming a judgment on this the Government would only consider a proposal to command sufficiently widespread acceptance if it appeared to be acceptable to both sides of the community".

That is a perfectly reasonable point of view. It does not require 70 per cent. It can be less than 70 per cent., so long as there is a majority, as clause 1(4)(b) makes clear. However, in so far as clause 1(4)(a) did not make the matter abundantly clear, it was thought that an amendment to clause 2 might help to make what apparently was not clear clearer on the face of the Bill. That is what I have tried to do. In my view, it is perfectly consistent with all we have said in and about the White Paper and since that time.

Mr. Gorst: I have followed up to a point what my right hon. Friend said in reply to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I am a little confused. My right hon. Friend said that it would be for this House to decide where the balance of argument, and so on, lay, and not for the Secretary of State to make judgments about political parties. Surely, in the first instance, it is the Secretary of State who will decide whether to put the proposal to the House for a decision. Will he not, therefore, need to take into consideration the views of a political party before he passes it on for consideration by the House?

Mr. Prior: The House, of course, takes the final decision. It would have two opportunities for debate before taking that decision. First, a report would have to be laid before the House, which the House could debate. Then there would be a second bite of the cherry, a debate on an Order in Council, and the approval of that order. So this House has two bites of the cherry.
I am considering whether we should frame an amendment, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Mansfield, placing an obligation on the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that the proposal he was putting to the House had widespread acceptance throughout the community at the time when he presented any proposal to the House in the form laid down in clause 1(4)(a) or (b), but particularly, in this case, in paragraph (a). After all, that is how we conduct the Committee stage in this House. We have had debates on the clause in the House in Committee. I have now said that I will look at them. It is perfectly proper and right that it is now a matter for the Report stage, and that is what I intend to do. I can honestly say that I am still discussing with my officials, Ministers and colleagues which amendment would meet the convenience of the Committee. I could then table that amendment on Report. That is the manner in which it is always carried out. There is nothing unusual or exceptional about this except that I have perhaps gone to great lengths to express my concern and to meet the wishes of the Committee.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The White Paper, the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman refer to "cross-community support". I am perplexed and worried about this. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by cross-community support? Is he talking in religious or political terms? Is he talking about the divide between Republican and Loyalist in Northern Ireland or between Protestant and Roman Catholic? Does he not accept that there are Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland who are loyal to the Crown? Many of them wish to remain under the Crown. How will he test their opinion if they vote for one of the numerous Unionist parties? That is the problem.

Mr. Prior: It is not easy for either hon. Members or anyone else to prove exactly what constitutes cross-community support. By the time the Assembly has discussed these matters—the Assembly will consist of a number of different parties—and by the time it has put forward a proposal, it will not be difficult for the House to decide in its own terms what constitutes cross-community support or whether the cross-community support that is necessary is there. There are two traditions. There are mixes and there are people who go between those two traditions. We have to accept that and, as I have made remarkably obvious, if there was not a problem we would not be discussing it.
We are trying to write into the Bill words which I believe will satisfy right hon. and hon. Members that every assurance will be given to the House that there is widespread acceptance throughout the community before it has to take a decision on this important matter.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the event of there being any dispute in the future between the Assembly and the House, the important words are the words in any Act that may emerge, and that anything that was said to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) or anything in the White Paper is entirely irrelevant? What will decide the matter are the words in the Act.

Mr. Prior: Of course.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I thought that I was clear from the White Paper, the Second Reading debate and our debates in Committee on the exact status of the 70 per cent. I am not clear now and I hope that my right hon. Friend can help me. My understanding is that, if the Assembly produces proposals for devolution that have 70 per cent. support in the Assembly, the Secretary of State has no choice but to present them to the House. If he presents them to the House, which he must do, he is either enabled or obliged—I am not clear which—to say whether he believes that the proposals have cross-community support. If, in his opinion, they do not have cross-community support—this is a matter on which I particularly seek guidance—I take it that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the House from disagreeing with him and saying that the proposals have cross-community support and, therefore, giving them effect or, more importantly, saying that, although they do not have cross-community support—the Secretary of State is quite right—we will still give effect to the proposals. Am I correct?

Mr. Prior: It is always difficult to be certain that I have understood my hon. Friend correctly, but I believe he is correct. It is always a matter for the judgment of the Committee. All I am saying is that it has been suggested by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that perhaps the House would be better advised if, when it came to consider the 70 per cent. proposal, it was spelt out in more forthright terms that that also had to command widespread acceptance throughout the community. That is what I am considering at the moment, and I shall take into account the views that are expressed today.
I should like to dispose of another misunderstanding, if it is a misunderstanding. There are those in the Committee who, like me, accept that the powers of local

government in Northern Ireland are derisory but who, unlike me, believe that the way forward lies in increasing the powers of local government rather than any scheme of devolution to which the Bill is designed to give effect. As I explained to the Committee, after a great deal of detailed examination which I initiated because I wanted to examine this vital matter personally and with care, I am wholly satisfied that the local government route does not advance solutions and in some respects will make them more difficult to obtain. That is my conclusion after much advice from a wide cross-section of people who agree that the powers are derisory but who still have a hang-up about the past. That is what I said in Committee when we discussed the matter on 9 June.
My conclusion is based on a great deal of thought. It is not, however, a conclusion founded on a formal inquiry as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and other hon. Members appear to believe since, in that technical sense, there has been no inquiry. There is also no report that I could lay before the Committee.
Having sought to put hon. Members' minds to rest on these points, I should like to make some brief remarks on clause 2.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: With respect to my right hon. Friend, he has said that there has been no formal inquiry, or an inquiry that would enable a report to be laid before the House. He says he has consulted, that he has given the matter thought and that he has come to a conclusion, but that is not sufficient to explain why it is improper, imprudent or inexpedient to enlarge the powers of local government and perhaps to introduce an upper tier of local government.

Mr. Barry Porter: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has come to a conclusion on the basis of his thoughts. I should like to know on what evidence those thoughts were based and how he came to his conclusion. We have also had thoughts which, I hope, have been reasonable. We have based those thoughts on evidence and have come to a conclusion on that evidence. We ask for reciprocation.

Mr. Prior: I cannot go into this matter in great detail. A Minister should talk to a wide range of people at all times. I have talked to the political parties, to local councillors and to local councils. There are some political parties such as the Official Unionists and the Democratic Unionist Party which would, I believe, be in favour of giving more powers back to local authorities. Certainly the SDLP would be against it. I have talked to a number of individual councillors on councils where, at the moment, there is an SDLP majority. While they work satisfactorily together, I have been advised by them that they think it would be unwise at this stage to increase the powers of local authorities.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Prior: I have also had discussions with the people I meet and I have put the arguments to them. I have come to the conclusion that, although it would be right to seek at a proper time to give more powers to local authorities, that time is not right at the moment. It would not help to get the co-operation that one seeks from the Catholic minority if one went down that road at this stage These are the considerations that a Secretary of State has to take into account.
We are in a delicate position in Northern Ireland. We are trying to get the maximum co-operation on security—it is an issue that is before us all the time—and for that we need the active co-operation of all sections of the community. That is what I am seeking. That is why I believe that it would be unwise if we thought that there was some easy answer to be found by handing out further powers to local authorities, even though the powers of local authorities are undoubtedly derisory.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend think that there has been a change of opinion about local government since May 1979?

Mr. Prior: There have been considerably deeper discussions since May 1979 involving a much wider range of opinion in Northern Ireland. The implications for the minority community and the need to try to support and help that community to feel secure in helping to defeat the forces of evil are factors that perhaps have not been taken sufficiently into account. All these considerations weigh quite heavily with me, as my hon. Friend would expect.
By implication I have already touched on clause 2(1), which provides that
At any time after proposals have been laid before Parliament under section 1 above Her Majesty may
either suspend the operation of schedule 1 to the 1974 Act in full or, alternatively, suspend it so far as it relates
to the transferred matters within the responsibilities of such Northern Ireland departments as are specified in the Order.
In short, subsection (1)(a) provides for full devolution and subsection (1)(b) provides for partial devolution.
Subsection (3) provides that it is not necessary to proceed with full devolution via partial devolution but allows for that possibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), the Under-Secretary of State, has undertaken to consider how the wording of subsection (3) might be improved to take account of amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Down, South.
Subsection (4) provides that under partial devolution the Department of Finance and Personnel may not be devolved. This makes administrative sense as that Department could scarcely be responsible to the Assembly while other departments remained under the control and direction of the Secretary of State. None the less, it is our intention that the devolved departments will have wide discretion to establish expenditure priorities within the overall total.
Subsection (5) brings into play schedule 1, which sets out the machinery by which the fully or partially devolved Administration would operate. Finally, subsection (6) provides that an order effecting either full or partial devolution may contain any transitional provisions that may be necessary to facilitate the movement from direct rule. This is a permissive provision to enable the settlement of practical details.
Clause 2, together with the detail of schedule 1, provides for the establishment of a fully or partially devolved Northern Ireland Administration along the lines of the proposals submitted by the Assembly and laid before Parliament under clause 1. It is an integral and vital part of the Bill. I can reassure hon. Members that the Government will not seek to change it in substance. Any such amendment will be intended to remove any doubts that may linger or arise in the future. Under the Bill any

proposals for devolution must command widespread support across the community, which in the context of Northern Ireland inevitably means proposals that are acceptable to both sides of the community. I do not believe that anything else would ever get through the House of Commons, and it is for that reason that I consider it important that there should be no ambiguity on this issue.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I shall detain the Committee for only a short while. After six years in the Whips' Office, both in Government and in Opposition, I have no arguments to advance against the Secretary of State's statement. I accept that we have a duty to present our arguments in Committee and that the right hon. Gentleman should listen to them. However, on this occasion it is appropriate to accept that amendments should be tabled on Report. I am content to wait until that stage is reached before tabling amendments.
It is rather unfortunate that the Committee has perhaps been left bemused by the 70 per cent. provision. I think that it has confused the Committee in its understanding of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions. However, it is clear that he places paramountcy on a cross-section of the community giving its support and not on the 70 per cent. requirement.
I agree with the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) that we should not approach these issues with a clear division between Protestants and Catholics in our minds. The two identities within Northern Ireland can span the religious divide. If there is some ambiguity in the 70 per cent. requirement, the right hon. Gentleman will be wise to produce amendments on Report. I thought it right for the Opposition not to press their amendments to the 70 per cent provision. I was satisfied with the assurances that we received that there would be full debates and that it will be left to the House of Commons to decide at the end of the day whether it accepts or rejects the proposals that come forward, whether by way of the 70 per cent. requirement or support from a cross-section of the community.
I accept that powers to devolve will not come before the House of Commons to be rubber stamped by it. I concur with the right hon. Gentleman's view that if the greater part of the population of Northern Ireland does not accept the proposals, they will not stand a chance. The right hon. Gentleman was right to stress that.

Mr. W. Benyon: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the paramountcy of the criterion. Surely the paramountcy is this Parliament.

Mr. Concannon: I thought that I had said that. The House of Commons can reject whatever proposals come before it, irrespective of whether the Secretary of State accepts them. Paramountcy does not lie with the 70 per cent. requirement but with a cross-section of the community accepting the proposals.

Mr. Molyneux: Unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State have contrived to give the impression, perhaps accidentally, that there will be a free vote when the proposals come before the House of Commons. They seem to be suggesting that the proposals will be put before the House of Commons and that the Secretary of State may say "I do not like them very much. I am not terribly enthusiastic. However, here is the bone and you can worry it from now until 10 o'clock, if


there is not a suspension of the rule, and then you can have a free vote to decide whether you like it." The right hon. Gentleman knows, especially in the light of his experience in the Whips' Office—my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) once said that no man is ever the same after that experience—that that will never be. The Secretary of State will come to the Dispatch Box and say "My colleagues in the Cabinet and I have come to the conclusion that this does not meet the requirements for cross-community consent. I must therefore ask the House to reject it." Moreover, there will be a three-line Whip on both sides of the House on the matter.

Mr. Concannon: The Secretary of State at that time, whoever he may be, will have to give his recommendations to his Cabinet colleagues and party, just as I should have to give mine to the Shadow Cabinet and the Labour Party. Whether they were accepted or rejected, the normal procedures would take place. I do not see much sign in the House today of acceptance of the Secretary of State's opinion. I sometimes wonder what we have been doing for the past two weeks.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) takes a paranoid attitude about the Bill. He now accepts press reports that have no foundation.

Mr. Budgen: Is there not a risk that, even if there are words about cross-community acceptability in the legislation, the House may decide to act on other criteria? For example, the increase in the representation of Northern Ireland from 12 to 17 Members had nothing to do with electoral justice for Northern Ireland. It was part of a party deal by which support was obtained by the Labour Government from some of the Ulster Members of Parliament.

Mr. James A. Dunn: What about the Speaker's Conference?

Mr. Budgen: Yes, but its implementation was based upon party political considerations. Is there not a risk that other and extraneous factors will come into play?

Mr. Concannon: That is utterly false. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West knows or was in the House at that time, but that question was put to the Minister who had the job of steering that legislation through the House. I know about its birth and how it was steered through.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is getting paranoid about the Bill. He sees collusion in press reports that have no foundation. His contribution to the Bill would be much better if he started to examine the matter in the way that the people of Northern Ireland would wish him to examine it rather than be paranoid about the Bill or the Secretary of State. I am simply unable to understand some of his reasoning.
I have no qualms about the way in which the Secretary of State is conducting himself or about the way in which the Committee stage is proceeding. I am quite happy to wait for the Report stage. If the amendments are not to our liking, we shall challenge them on Report. We accept the Secretary of State's final statement that in no way can the Bill work unless it is accepted by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall take up the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State on the wireless on Sunday. He said that he thought that the House of Commons, in having a debate both on the White Paper and on Second Reading, had had a fair chance to express its view. He may not have known it but I sat through both debates with a speech that I was unable to make. If I make a little of it now, I hope that he will forgive me. I do not intend to waste his or the Committee's time but I have had the speech with me for two or three weeks and I should like to make it.

Mr. Budgen: Many other hon. Members are in the same predicament.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Anyone who has taken an interest in the political history of Northern Ireland in the past 10 years has, at some stage, offered proposals in the Chamber for solving its extremely difficult problems. In my day, I proposed an administrative assembly and an advisory council—a type of Northern Ireland Privy Council to advise the Secretary of State. I have pressed for an inquiry into the local government structure of the Province and I have supported the concept of an elected regional council. What is more, in those years I have chided at least one Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason)—for taking no political initiative on the ground, which he advanced, that he could not find any consensus between the political parties. I suggested that his job was to introduce political institutions that, in his opinion, were good for the Province, whether local politicians liked them or not.
With that track record I can hardly complain if my right hon. Friend presents the Committee with his considered views about how the Province should be governed in the future. I congratulate him both on the flexibility of his approach—it comes through in every speech that he makes—and on his determination that the future course of political events in Northern Ireland will, to a great extent, be in the hands of Northern Ireland politicians.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right when he suggests that if the responsibility is placed with the politicians of Northern Ireland none of them can complain if what then follows does not exactly meet the requirements of arty one of the political parties. He has based his political initiative on his twin beliefs that there is an urgent need for a political initiative to give Northern Ireland politicians, an opportunity to play a mare constructive part in the affairs of the Province, by way of an elected Assembly, and that if the initiative develops, as he thinks that it may, the Assembly will be able to develop from a deliberating, consultative and advisory institution to a farm of devolved government for the Province if the Assembly so wishes.
To some extent, my right hon. Friend's intentions meet the pledge that was given in the Conservative Party manifesto at the last general election. I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends of our words. We said that in the absence of devolved government we would try to establish elected regional councils. My right hon. Friend is giving Northern Ireland the opportunity, if it wishes, to have devolved government. If it does not, we must see what happens to the Assembly and in what way it wishes to go. I share my right hon. Friend's intentions. It would be difficult to think of a fairer way of approaching the political problems of Northern Ireland that have bedevilled the Province for the past 10 years, and certainly since 1974.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he mean that this should be the last attempt at devolution and that we can then proceed to a more practicable system of administration for Northern Ireland? He will recall that we have had many attempts at devolution and many political initiatives that were aimed at devolution. They have not succeeded. With each failure, the status and prestige of Her Majesty's Government diminishes and the anxieties of Loyalists increase—as do the hopes of terrorists.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I hope to answer my hon. Friend's point. It is not wise now to predict complete failure for the Bill. It must be given a fair wind. My right hon. Friend may have seized a moment in the affairs of the Province when he can achieve something that has been denied others who have devised initiatives. The flexibility that is inherent in the Bill gives it its best chance of success. We can be sure that an Assembly will be created as a result of the Bill, but we cannot be sure what will happen after it is created, because it is up to the Assembly to decide whether to go for full devolution, partial devolution or no devolution at all.
Let none of us get too worked up about the Assembly. In size, it would be smaller than Berkshire county council. I find it difficult to become greatly agitated about a body so small, which in the first instance will at least give Northern Ireland the feeling that it has some say in the affairs of the Province.
I wish to press my right hon. Friend a shade further. I see in clause 2 some of the essential ingredients for the success or failure of his endeavour. My right hon. Friend described his White Paper as "Framework for Devolution". The very concept of a framework is of something upon which one builds. My right hon. Friend also said—I think that this was originally a media phrase, but my right hon. Friend used it on Second Reading—that the White Paper and the Bill were a do-it-yourself devolution kit. If he really means that, when he has created the Assembly and given it the chance to go in various different directions he must to some extent, like Frankenstein, let his monster go the way that it wishes to go. If we prod the Assembly too much towards legislative devolution rather than towards adding to and improving the administration of the Province, we may be trying to force it down a road along which it does not necessarily wish to journey.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: One of the major faults of the Bill is that it gives a do-it-yourself constitutional kit to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland in the Assembly but denies them an important part of the kit—the ability to create their own executive devolution and their own local government. The Bill at present allows no choice. It is legislative devolution or nothing. There is no halfway house. My hon. Friend may be about to suggest that the Bill could be modified to give that choice, but in its own terms it does not provide the do-it-yourself opportunity that it purports to contain.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend makes a good point that I wished to develop further. I have talked about flexibility. Nothing that I have heard or read in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggests that his approach is other than extremely flexible. Even his remarks today about widespread acceptance throughout the community suggest to me that he

recognises that that acceptance within the community is more important than being too precise about the parts of the community from which the consent comes. I do not wish to put words into my right hon. Friend's mouth. If I have done so, I apologise at once.
If my right hon. Friend simply creates the Assembly as a debating society which is unwilling to go for devolution, and he will therefore not allow it to proceed in a different direction, it will become like one of those supposedly pregnant pandas that attract great publicity but at the end of the day cause a good deal of embarrassment to those who predict a happy outcome. However, I do not believe that that is my right hon. Friend's intention. I believe that he is creating a situation in which the Assembly will be able to proceed on the course that it most actively believes to be in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's fascinating speech on the White Paper, Second Reading or whatever it is. I was fortunate enough to be able to contribute to one of the debates, but I seek your guidance for the future, as I may wish to speak in the Committee. Flexibility seems now to be the name of the game in relation to the Bill, but I do not know whether the flexibility in relation to this debate on clause 2 would allow me or other hon. Members to talk about anything we wish in relation to the Bill, to Northern Ireland, its history and its future, past or present. I raise this point of order from my inexperience, in the hope that you will guide me. It seems to me that the essence of the Bill is in clause 1. Reading clause 2 as a simple solicitor, I understand that it simply allows Parliament to put into effect what the Assembly wishes, if Parliament so decides. What there is to talk about in that is quite beyond me, although I gather that my dislike of the Bill is rather greater than my hon. Friend's.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I was listening carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and I was becoming a little anxious. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to clause 2.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am extremely grateful for your tolerance, Mr. Armstrong. I hope that my remarks were leading exactly to the subject of the debate and that what I have said would thus seem to round off my contribution.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend comment further on his assertion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shows extreme flexibility in all circumstances? I am sure that all of us would agree that that is so, but is there not a danger that in this context a concession to one group almost inevitably brings a reaction from another, as in the reaction of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to the proposed amendment to clause 2? Does my hon. Friend agree that in this context there may be disadvantages in that flexibility?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: There are disadvantages in anything if it is taken to extremes, but I do not suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would do that. I believe that he has sought to grasp the nettle of Northern Ireland politics in a way that gives him more chance of success than any of his predecessors in the past 10 years.
I turn specifically to the concept of full or partial devolution after proposals have been laid before Parliament under clause I. The speech of my right hon. Friend and the debate on the amendments made it clear that the Departments could be devolved in total or in part. That concept of fragmented powers is interesting, as it is conceivable that the Assembly might wish so to fragment departmental powers as effectively to give itself the powers of a county council. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has considered that possibility. Presumably it would be possible to devolve from the Department of Finance the functions of rating and rate collection; from the Department of the Environment the policy and funding of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, town and country planning, roads, car parking, water and sewerage services and the Northern Ireland fire authority; from the Department of Health the personal social services and the four health and social services boards, and from the Department of Education all aspects of the education service. It would seem possible for it to do just that. Therefore, if I have understood the Bill aright, the clause contains the possibility for the Assembly to choose to go for something far more like the powers of a regional council than for the full panoply of legislative powers, which it might have but not seek to use.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: A county council or regional council as commonly understood is not a legislative body. The hon. Gentleman seems not to have grasped the fact that the only devolution open to be proposed by the Assembly is devolution within the terms of the 1973 Act, in which legislative and executive powers are inseparably knit together. With great respect, it is not, as he suggests, within the choice of the Assembly to opt for a Department or even part of a Department in an executive but not in a legislative sense.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I entirely recognise the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, but having devolved those powers the Assembly may use those powers as it thinks fit. No Department endlessly introduces legislation. It introduces the legislation that it believes it requires, otherwise it seeks to administer a particular service.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Departments do not, for the most part, introduce legislation. Legislation is introduced by the Executive. In so far as there is any devolution under the Bill, the legislative initiative is bound to lie with the head of the Department or the Executive, as the case may be.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is nevertheless a fact that not every Department introduces legislation into the House, nor is it bound to do so. Departments only do so when they feel the need to have legislation.
It appears to me that the Assembly can follow a course that may be of its choosing and that my right hon. Friend has not deliberately closed it off from doing.
What status will those who head the devolved Department have? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food speaks on behalf of the United Kingdom at the Council of Agriculture Ministers. Is it conceivable that in future another Minister or head of Department from Northern Ireland will sit at the same meetings? Will that Minister or head of Department have the same status as my right hon. Friend, or will he simply be part of my right hon. Friend's team?

Mr. Prior: Under the Stormont Government the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Harry West, often came to see me when I was Minister of Agriculture here. The Westminster Minister negotiated the price review, as it was then, and carried the main negotiations, but he consulted the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is responsible for agriculture, thinks that it is right and proper and in the interests of Northern Ireland to attend an EEC meeting alongside my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, he will do so. The same would pertain under the new arrangements. The Minister of Agriculture in the new Executive, or in the devolved Department, could, if he so wished—and I expect that he would from time to time—go to Brussels with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. I shall take it one stage further. We could find that the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture had a different view about fisheries or price fixing. My right hon. Friend appears to be saying that the Minister of Agriculture in the United Kingdom is primus inter pares and will, therefore, have the last word. I believe that to be absolutely right.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Further refinements have been introduced since Stormont. The permanent secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture always sat in as part of the team advising the Minister responsible for negotiations that took place anywhere relating to agriculture. Further, if any disagreement was registered, it came back to Ministers under direct rule and was taken up at every stage, including the Cabinet committee and even the Cabinet itself.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information.

Mr. Gorst: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is entirely satisfied with the Secretary of State's reply, but I should like to put a point that arises from it. The people who are elected to the Assembly may have partial devolution. Some matters may rest with them and others with a Department in this country. With such partial devolution, is there a danger of difficulty in ascribing responsibility for what has, or has not, been achieved when the electorate renews the mandate for the people who are elected? As regards the second stage of partial devolution, how will my hon. Friend reconcile that in terms of the acceptability and desirability of the proposal that he supports.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: By raising that issue my hon. Friend enables me to conclude on this point. Northern Ireland has not had a governmental structure of its own since 1974. Its governmental. muscles are atrophied. It must discover the way of moving again. That is why I place so much emphasis on the regional council and the administrative part, at least initially, of the Assembly moving towards becoming a fresh Government for Northern Ireland as it makes its way from an Assembly, with certain limited powers, and decides the way that it wants to develop. It will develop those muscles naturally and will then discover where its responsibilities lie, who does what, and how that blends in with Westminster.
It is clear that, although the Bill will give Northern Ireland the opportunity to have the powers that it wishes


in its Assembly, nothing in the Bill takes from the Parliament of Westminster its role as the mother Parliament of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend's answer about who would speak for the United Kingdom at Brussels underlines that point as well as anything could.

Mr. J. Grimond: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the Secretary of State for speaking at the opening of this debate on clause stand part and for explaining something of what is in his mind about a possible amendment. As he said, he is not doing anything unusual. It is common for Governments, having listened to what is said in Committee, to announce that they will table amendments on Report, but it is unusual to explain them at the beginning of a debate in Committee. I welcome that departure. It would often be welcome if Ministers made short speeches in opening debates on clause stand part and replied at the end.
I am not certain whether the right hon. Gentleman's amendment would make it obligatory on a Secretary of State to ensure that a proposal for devolution from the Assembly with 70 per cent. support had cross-community consent before he introduced it to the House, or whether he would be bound to introduce it to the House but would warn the House that it had, or had not, cross-community consent. If the amendment means that, although the Assembly had made a proposal backed by 70 per cent. of Members, he would not be bound to introduce it to the House unless he was satisfied that it had cross-community consent, I should have thought that an amendment was necessary to clause 1(4).
As the Bill stands, it seems to be mandatory on the Secretary of State to introduce such a proposal, although he might advise against it. If, on the other hand, it is only to make it clear that in introducing such a proposal the Secretary of State is bound to advise the House whether it has cross-community consent, it would appear that there was little point in retaining clause 1(4)(a). This will virtually be the position, slightly modified, of clause 1(4)(b). In either event, there is considerable danger of conflict between the Government and the Assembly.
If the Assembly were several times to agree proposals that had attracted a 70 per cent. majority that were not then introduced in this House because the Secretary of State felt that they did not have cross-community support, it might lead to an awkward situation between this House and the Assembly. For example, there could be frustration in the Assembly, which will have little else to do except to air grievances in Northern Ireland, which no doubt it will do at considerable length. As it will have no responsibility for taxation, it will no doubt make all sorts of interesting proposals about how money should be spent. At the same time, it may find that its proposals to take responsibility through devolution are rejected by the House of Commons although they are supported by more than 70 per cent. of the elected members of the Northern Ireland body. Surely that could create an awkward position.
6 pm
Will the right hon. Gentleman's proposed amendment mean that the Secretary of State will not introduce devolution proposals unless he is satisfied that they have cross-community support, or will he introduce them but advise that they do not have such support? Personally I believe that both options are fraught with great difficulties.

However, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said, there is no ideal situation for Northern Ireland. There is a difficulty with every conceivable solution that one may propose.
Because of the powerful arguments of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), many of us are coming to the view that perhaps sleeping dogs should be allowed to lie.
I hope that the Bill achieves success and commands support in Northern Ireland. If the Assembly is allowed to propose devolution measures with 70 per cent. support, it would be wiser that such proposals should be introduced in the House of Commons even if the Secretary of State has to advise that they do not have cross-community consent. It would be wiser to let the House debate such proposals, and to let Northern Ireland Members put the case for them, rather than that such proposals passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly with such a large majority should never come to this House at all.
Like the Secretary of State, I am open to argument on this point. At present I believe that he should omit clause 1(4)(a) and rely upon clause 1(4)(b), with an amendment to clause 2 if necessary. In the event of his retaining clause 1(4)(a), he should at least ensure that such proposals are debated in this House even though he may have to advise that, in his view, they do not have cross-community support.

Sir Philip Goodhart: In discussions during the general election about what the Conservative Party should say about Northern Ireland, I recall that we reached a formula that there should be no important constitutional change unless it was supported by a majority of the majority and at least a minority of the minority. In other words, it was clearly felt that change in Northern Ireland had to be supported by a majority of the Unionist parties in the Province. At the same time, it was felt that it would not be worth while bringing forward any major constitutional change unless it was actively supported by steadfast speech and at least a number of the political leaders identified with the Catholic community. I understood that to be the attitude of the Conservative Party.
I am not entirely clear whether that is still the party's attitude, especially in view of clause 2. I am not clear whether it would be sufficient to have the support of a minority of political leaders from the Catholic community or whether we are insisting that any change should be supported by a majority of leaders of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland. In other words, are we giving a veto to the SDLP?
As I have listened to these debates or read reports of them, I have become unclear about the Government's position. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State is clear in his mind about the position. Therefore, I would welcome clarification on this point before we leave clause 2.

Viscount Cranborne: How is the Secretary of State to judge what constitutes cross-community support? Will he have to rely on his own judgment or the judgment of the ballot box? If it is his own judgment, surely there are many examples, both here and in other countries, where the judgments of individual politicians, however experienced, are shown to be false when tested against the results of the ballot box.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I take it that there would have to be an element of subjective decision on the part of the Secretary of State. For example, four or five years ago the support of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and Paddy Devlin for devolution measures of the sort envisaged in the Bill would clearly have constituted cross-community support. While I wish both those gentlemen well, I do not believe that today one could say that they constituted cross-community support.

Mr. Budgen: If the test is to be submitted to the judgment of this House and it is one of cross-party support, how is it possible to exclude other considerations? As my hon. Friend has said, a proposal could be put to the House for a decision based on cross-party support, but hon. Members may decide the issue on other and extraneous reasons.

Sir Philip Goodhart: My hon. Friend has been a member of the Whips' Office, alas, for too short a time. He knows perfectly well that almost all decisions in the House are taken on entirely extraneous considerations.

Mr. Budgen: In my earlier intervention about the change from 12 to 17 seats in Ulster, I perhaps exaggerated my position. I am simply saying that, when deciding whether to do justice to a group, the timing of that decision may be affected by other and extraneous reasons.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Having taken some part in the Speaker's Conference and in discussion on increasing the number of Members in Northern Ireland, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is right in his pessimistic view on the wheeling and dealing that occurred.
In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to his remarks on local government. He said:
It is of course true that changes to the structure of local government even of the most minor kind would be highly contentious within Northern Ireland, and we know why that is. Whatever hon. Members may feel about the history of local government in Northern Ireland … it is enough that there is a deeply held belief that abuse of local government was the cause of many injustices in the past and that the restoration of powers might see the return of those injustices."—[Official Report, 9 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 229–30.]
My right hon. Friend is right to say that there are fears about the return of extra powers to local government in Northern Ireland. I referred earlier to a conversation that I had some time ago with Senator Seamus Mallon, who told me that it would be impossible to site or maintain street lights in Northern Ireland on other than a strictly sectarian basis. That is not true, but people will continue to believe that it is true until it is seen not to be. Therefore, one must progressively put back greater powers into the hands of councils in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) made a highly damaging attack upon me about my attitude to car park charges in Northern Ireland when I was a Minister answerable for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. It is true that nominally the Minister answerable for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland is responsible to the House for setting all car park charges in Northern Ireland. When I held that position I was anxious to try to return to the councils real power over car park charges, although one could not do it de jure.
Only by working together on local road programmes, local planning problems, car park charges and the siting

and maintenance of street lighting will one get away from the fear of inbuilt prejudice and unfairness and the memories of the past will go away.
My right hon. Friend believes that stability can be brought about in Northern Ireland by getting the politicians to talk together. My impression over the years is that political leaders in Northern Ireland talk to each other a great deal—far more than most hon. Members believe—but that they do not work together to achieve practical results. It is better for local councillors to work together than to bring people together to talk in a vacuum. In that way we shall make progress in Northern Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sure that it was beneficial for the debate that the Secretary of State should have opened it as he did, because this is the crucial clause of the Bill. Clause 1 is only a preface to this clause. The operative clause to bring about devolution is clause 2. No one who has listened to the debate would doubt that there was real misunderstanding and division about the possible amendments to the clause that might be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman.
Therefore, in dealing with the clause as the operative clause of this part of the Bill, we are still living under a sense of irony in that earlier this afternoon the Prime Minister recalled the words of the commander in the Falkland Islands, rejoicing that the Falkland Islands were once more under the Government desired by the inhabitants. A few hours later we are debating whether we should impose upon Northern Ireland a constitution to which almost every organised political body and expression of political opinion is opposed and rejects.
We also know, since the debate last week and the valuable information placed before the Committee by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), that the clause is the end process of an initiative designed to overthrow the Northern Ireland policy of the Conservative Party
with the object of establishing another 'power-sharing' government in the province, which could pave the way for a federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic."—[Official Report, 8 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 52.]
Those are no longer the words of suspicious, conspiracy-minded Members for Northern Ireland. Thanks to the hon. Member for Epping Forest, we now know that that was the view held inside the Conservative Party at the 1979 general election. We are debating a crucial clause in circumstances in which we realise its bearings and its full significance for the people of Northern Ireland.
The dialogue between the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) illuminated the difficulty between clauses 1 and 2. Perhaps I might try to put it slightly differently with a view to obtaining agreement as to where the problem lies. There are three stages in the process of devolution as envisaged by the Bill. The first is proposals from the Assembly, the second is a decision of the Secretary of State to make a draft Order in Council, and the third is the decision of the House to approve the draft order. Those are the three effective stages, and one cannot take place without the other.
Clause 1 sets out in the celebrated subsection (4) the preconditions for stage 1. They are expressed in the alternative in subsection (4), either the 70 per cent. or the 50 per cent. plus one, with the Secretary of State's opinion


that there is widespread acceptance throughout the community. When we come to clause 2 and the subsequent effective steps, nothing in the Bill imports either those conditions or any modification to them either to the making of the order by the Secretary of State or to the acceptance of that order by the House. This is the initial cause of worry for many members of the Committee. They have read the White Paper and listened to the speeches of the Secretary of State, but when they read the Bill they find that there are conditions set out for the first stage in clause 1 but no conditions, in terms of the Bill, attached to the second and third stages, which are the stages that matter.
There is one reason why there is this gap and difference in clause 2, and it is important that this reason should be understood. All that clause 2 deals with is an Order in Council, and that will simply deal with the suspension of direct rule, or with the suspension of direct rule localised in one or more Departments. I envisage, and the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, that the Order in Council will be a very brief one. All that it would need to do would be to specify, if it were under paragraph (b), the Departments that were to be relieved from direct rule and pass them across from direct rule to devolution.
Unless I have misunderstood the Bill, it would not spell out the working arrangements that would be an integral part of proposals put forward by the Assembly and on the basis of which the second and third stages were followed. When we debated clause 1, it was clear, and many of the debates on amendments brought this out, that the Secretary of State envisaged that the proposals as they came from the Assembly would be quite detailed as to the nature of the working, the arrangements and the checks and balances. At one point, he even envisaged that there might be specifications as to personality.
When we come to clause 2, which is the operative part, all that the House has to grip on is an Order in Council which does only the baldest thing in the baldest terms. This is our difficulty.

Mr. Prior: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has got this right. I am not quite certain whether he recognises that under clause 1 there would be a debate either when the order had to be laid because of the 70 per cent. or because the Secretary of State was "satisfied". There would be a debate then. There would then have to be a second debate when the draft Order in Council came before the House. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the amendment that I am suggesting that I shall look at will deal with the order-making part of clause 2. That would be to try perhaps to put into the order-making part of clause 2 the necessity of any order
to command widespread acceptance throughout the community.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I had appreciated that the relatively detailed and elaborate proposals that might come from the Assembly would normally be the subject of a preliminary debate, a debate in which the outcome would be in the minds of the Secretary of State when he laid the draft order and of the House when it debated it. However, we are still left with the fact that the decision of the House is effectively separated from the details of the proposals.
There is thus the difficulty both of the Committee and of the right hon. Gentleman in attaching what he considers to be the necessary power-sharing conditions to the act of devolution that takes place by the making and the approval of the draft. Our difficulty this afternoon was—this is the difficulty felt so acutely by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—that as the Secretary of State described the precondition for which he would look in deciding to make a draft order, and for which the House would be advised to look in approving an order, it would be more restrictive than the condition in clause 1(4). That would enable the proposals to come before the House in the first place, so that a proposal that had 70 per cent. support could be debated by the House. However, a proposal that had only 70 per cent. support, without fulfilling the conditions in clause 1(4)(b), would not be a proposal—said the Secretary of State, and one understands why—that would result in his making a draft order or in the House's approving it.
Thus, the funnel narrows as we move down it, from the original work of the Assembly towards the passing of the Order in Council, and the conditions attached to the nature of the power sharing are rendered more severe and specific as that process goes on. I agree with the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that, that being so, however great the difficulties in drafting somehow to get this into the Bill, the Secretary of State is right to attempt to do so. I agree, too, with those who say that this second definition of more restricted conditions for devolution is of substantial importance to the parties and public opinion in Northern Ireland in making up their minds about what is proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Farr: I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's argument as closely as I have been able. He seemed to say that he fears that when an order comes before the House for discussion it will be in bald and minimal terms, merely inviting the House to, say, approve the transfer of one Department or another. Will the right hon. Gentleman give his mind to the possibility, which I understand exists, of a part transfer of a Department? If that were the case—if I catch your eye later, Mr. Armstrong, I hope to develop this question—there are many Departments that might be transferred in part rather than in toto. If they were transferred in part alone, the relevant order would surely be more fulsome, and there would be better opportunities for discussion.

Mr. Powell: I may have misunderstood something that was said earlier in our proceedings. I understood that it was said that if it was desired to divide a Department for partial devolution, that Department would be divided first, while still under direct rule—the Secretary of State nods his assent—and then the machinery would still apply and a simple and plain devolution Order in Council would still be laid before the House.
The central matter, which has become clear only through the debate this afternoon, is that the condition attached to the making of the draft order and its recommendation to the House is different from the condition attached in clause 1(4) to the putting forward and the receipt of proposals of the Assembly, in that paragraph (a) is eliminated as an alternative authorisation, leaving paragraph (b) alone. Whether paragraph (b) remains in the form in which we find it was not clear as the Secretary of State—I make no complaint of this—attempted several different formulations of what he meant by


widespread acceptance throughout the community.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I have tried to follow the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, as I tried to follow those of the Secretary of State a little earlier. As I understand it, proposals that are approved by 70 per cent. of the Assembly have to be debated in the House. There is no question of that. It cannot be prevented, whatever the Secretary of State's opinion of the proposals. If they are then approved by the House, Whips or no Whips, free vote, whipped vote or whatever, does the Secretary of State have any option as to whether he brings in an order to give those proposals legislative effect?

Mr. Powell: That is for the Secretary of State to answer. My understanding is that he has an option. Not only does he have discretion, but he will not use his discretion affirmatively unless those proposals qualify under subsection (4)(b), and not just under 4(a), or, at any rate, the second half of 4(b)—
widespread acceptance throughout the community.
Hence the importance, which I do not think the Secretary of State or the Committee originally understood, of the clarification that we now have as to what is intended in the working of clause 2.
The Secretary of State referred to the manner in which I spoke earlier of his intervention in the debate last week. He may have thought that I was, perhaps, over-generous in the terminology that I attached to it. I believe that his intervention was important in a number of contexts and not least in the context of widespread or cross-community acceptance.
6.30 pm
The Secretary of State came near to misunderstanding the crucial point on the matter of power sharing. That is the point at which he passes from general acceptance throughout the community to acceptance by the political parties in the Assembly. It is the transition from community to political party on which the whole difficulty hinges, and that goes, in my view, to the heart of the matter. Nobody in the politics of this part of the community is confused between the two. Nobody talks about the Socialist community and that the Socialist community should be brought into Government if the Government's policies are to achieve support. In the parliamentary institution in this island we know that a party with specific policies and purposes is, on the basis of those policies and purposes, voted into the House in certain numbers. If in sufficient numbers, they are voted into office. We accept the fact that thereby they have the opportunity to put those policies and promises into effect during the course of that Parliament. Nobody mistakes that party, sitting in the House, for the community out of which it comes or with which it might for some purpose be identified.

Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am making my maiden intervention in the debate. Is not the right hon. Gentleman making two mistakes when he compares the position in the mainland with that in the Province? Has he not forgotten 60 years of Stormont rule when the position in Northern Ireland was the same as that in Great Britain? Why was Stormont dissolved? Why did the Conservative Administration decide that it had failed in Northern Ireland? We know what happened as a result of the imposition of direct rule. It is important to bear in mind

the origin of Northern Ireland and that a large number of people—certainly not the majority, but the minority community—resent the manner in which Northern Ireland came into being and say that there was no mandate from the Irish people for the division of Ireland that led to the six counties and not the nine counties of traditional Ulster.

Mr. Powell: I am sorry that the hon. Member missed my extensive speech last week which largely dealt with the matters that he raised.
While we would all say that any Government or constitution have to command widespread support throughout the community, we understand how that can be consistent with the Opposition in this country voting solidly against what the Government do. The two things coexist. We have a political Opposition in the House whose objects are incompatible in matters of political dispute with the objects of the Government, yet there is widespread support throughout the community for the carrying on of the Queen's Government from Parliament to Parliament. It is that gap in the thinking that has led to the attempt to impose a grotesque and undemocratic condition upon the Government of Northern Ireland. There is to be no Executive and no system that is not supported by those who, as party representatives, are elected, sent to sit in the Assembly to do opposite and incompatible things.
It is a mistake to suppose that because that is impracticable, therefore, there is not, and cannot be, widespread support throughout the community in Northern Ireland for the Administration. When I use the word "Administration" I come to the essential point that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised. If we insist that in Northern Ireland there must be a separate legislative authority, then we raise the spectre and the fact that the parties in Northern Ireland are, as the hon. Member has implied, not merely representing—though to some extent they do—political objects in the narrow sense; they are representing different aspirations for the future of the Province. The impracticability of combining those—least of all by combining them with schemes of cooperating in an Executive—is the creation of our notion that somehow we have to create in Northern Ireland a legislative devolution.
I shall take the risk of paying the Secretary of State a compliment. I am riot sure that he always regards them as compliments when they come from me, but I shall take that risk again. It is a sincere compliment. I want to thank the Secetary of State for the manner in which, in Committee, he has not done what a great many Ministers in charge of a Bill would do—without incurring any criticism—and left a good deal of the work of and the time in Committee in the able hands of his junior Ministers. With the exception of about a couple of hours, he has sat right the way through and heard every word that has been spoken, as well as intervening. The value of that—and why I believe that we ought to be so grateful—is that I believe that the right hon. Gentleman, like the rest of us, has much to learn. I do not say that cynically or in any insulting way. It is only after a considerable time and after the confrontation of interpretations of the position in Northern Ireland that one comes to a true insight and understands why there are certain things that, try as one might, will not work. I hope, therefore, that as a result of the debate, the right hon. Gentleman will apply his mind again to this—I suggest that it is a fallacy in the notion of


power sharing—that I have ventured to summarise as the false equation between community and party, between the acceptance by the community and the agreement and cooperation of a political party.

Mr. Gorst: The right hon. Gentleman has been describing the irreconcilable anomaly—the disparity between the elected people and the constituency that elected them. He talked in terms of a funnel down which clause 1 and clause 2 take us to where the Secretary of State makes recommendations to the House. He should not be content with making a statement of the position. Will he speculate, for the sake of all of us and the Secretary of State in particular, how he believes that Members of the Assembly will feel—having argued and discussed at length—if they are told that their proposal does not have the widespread support of the people? How will they feel if the Secretary of State does not put the proposal to the House for ratification or, if he has made a judgment that there is widespread support, there is no certainty that among the people there is that widespread support? What will be the effect on Assembly Members?

Mr. Powell: It is always asking for trouble to invite people to do something which is inherently contradictory and which contains built-in impossibilities or contradictions. Not for the first time, that is being done in this part of the Bill.
I apologise for referring to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir. P. Goodhart) in his absence, but he made that point clearly. I mention his speech briefly because it cross-checks and confirms what I have been trying to put to the Secretary of State about the distinction between party and community. If there is a legislative Assembly, it is the duty of those sent to that Assembly to get their hands on the levers of the law to bring about the promises, prospects and aspirations which they held up when they were elected.
If the powers are not there, if it is an administrative, not a legislative, body—I almost dare to say, if it is a subordinate body and not a sovereign body—its members can say "This is the machinery that we must work. We must make sense of the machinery and we must get along together in working it." As the hon. Member for Beckenham said, that is what they do already in the narrow sense and that is what they would do in the much wider sense if the House were willing to allow it.

Mr. Porter: The right hon. Gentleman is at the nub of the matter. I accept his thesis about politics and the role of the party. The possibilities of proposals coming from the Assembly are, therefore, in the gift of Unionists in their various guises. If the Unionist parties believe that there are impossible and irreconcilable positions, what is the point of continuing with the Bill? Are the Unionists saying that there is no possibility of achieving anywhere near 70 per cent., or even 50 per cent. plus 1, so that the Secretary of State cannot say that there is cross-community support? It seems that in the Secretary of State's view cross-community support comes from a minority community. Are the Unionists saying that cross-community support is impossible? They say that they will stand for the Assembly, but what will they do when they get there? The Committee is entitled to know.

Mr. Powell: That intervention demonstrates the importance of these debates. That is why such debates, although lengthy, are in no sense a waste of the time of the House or the Government. They expose the manner in which the impracticable framework is bound to be dealt with and condition those elected to take part in it. If we do not want to create additional frustration and hold out false hopes in the Province, where frustration and false hopes are apt directly or indirectly to cause physical and mortal harm, we had better take the conclusion in regard to the Bill. To that extent I am entirely in line with the point made by the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter).
6.45 pm
The point about a legislative Assembly, legislative devolution and the inevitable built-in conflicts in the context of Northern Ireland brings me to what the Secretary of State said about local government. Most of us will have taken the opportunity at the weekend of reading and re-reading what the right hon. Gentleman said. What he said is without doubt important. It is important because it reveals that the Secretary of State shares the frustration of many of us at the absence of anything but minimal government in the Province. He did not pretend otherwise. Many of us would have used exactly his terminology in expressing that regret.
What is more, the right hon. Gentleman gave his own opinion that if local government were extended in the Province it would not lead to injustice. People might think that, but he stated that his opinion was that it would not. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to come to the conclusion which in some ways was incompatible with those propositions. He said that he thought that it should be left to a devolved set-up in Northern Ireland to decide whether to increase—and, if so how—improve, restore and evolve local government.
That is exactly the wrong conclusion. It is exactly because local government in Northern Ireland existed under the aegis of a devolved Parliament operating, as a Parliament can only operate, on the basis of the democracy on which we operate in the House that local government was so unpopular and suspect and that there is the hangover—to use the right hon. Gentleman's term—that now exists. Only local government conferred and supervised by the House, and for which, ultimately, a Minister responsible to the House has to answer, will be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. It is in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman to achieve that. It is not in the power or gift of any Assembly that he sets up or of any devolved body.
The same argument which refutes the fallacy of power-sharing refutes the fallacy that we have powers to restore local government to Northern Ireland. The debate carries us nearer to a common understanding of the nature of the problem and, I hope, carries the Secretary of State further along the path that his own opinions and inclinations induce him to follow.
I wish to mention only one other matter—timing. There is a deficiency in the clause. The clause begins with the words:
At any time after proposals have been laid before Parliament".
That is a mistake. It is a mistake to set up an Assembly, to invite it to put forward proposals and then to leave in


the Bill deliberately an indefinite gap between making the proposals and laying them before Parliament and practical action being taken.
We shall have the opportunity later of debating the advisability or otherwise of time limits. If when the right hon. Gentleman studies the words again he can find a way of showing to those concerned that this will not be an indefinite interval and that the proposals either will or will not be followed by effective action, that will be a modest but real improvement.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Like other hon. Members, I believe that clause 2 is the crucial clause. The crucial element of the debate on Wednesday was when the Secretary of State said to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that he was prepared to table an amendment on Report to meet the spirit of the Opposition amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that his amendment sought to achieve the objective set out on Second Reading. The amendment sought to insert the words
widespread acceptance throughout the community.
I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's words at the beginning of today's debate. The terms "cross-community support" and "widespread acceptance throughout the community" have been used. It was, indeed, the latter term that the Secretary of State took up when he said that on Report he would table an amendment to the effect that the two Houses of Parliament would not be likely to give support to any proposal unless it had widespread acceptance throughout the community.
There is a great difference between the term "cross-community support" and the term "widespread acceptance throughout the community". There is also a distinction between widespread acceptance throughout the community and widespread acceptance in the terms that the Secretary of State later explained, which meant to him that there would have to be acceptance by both political sections of the community.
I come back to a theme that I dealt with earlier. There are two types of person in the Chamber. There are those, like myself, who genuinely want devolution and will do all within their power to make work a Bill that gives a real prospect of devolution, and there are those who are out to scuttle any hope of devolution. Those of us who want devolution and would like to look to the Bill to give us a fighting chance might have been able to say that we had that chance last Wednesday morning, but on Wednesday afternoon we could not have said that because there was no prospect of the Bill, when it became an Act, ever allowing rolling devolution to roll. The Assembly would certainly have the initial functions, which we have already indicated are important and valuable, but it would never under the terms enunciated by the Secretary of State get full devolved powers and executive functions. The reason needs to he explained for those who are not closely involved with Northern Ireland.
One would be an optimist to believe that 70 per cent. support in the Assembly would be achieved easily, but, if it were, it could be argued that there was widespread acceptance throughout the community. As the Secretary of State stated during the discussion about a referendum, it would not be necessary to have a referendum because the politicians in Northern Ireland reflected so accurately the wishes of those they represented that one could say automatically that, if 70 per cent. of the Assembly agreed

with a proposition, it would have the support of roughly 70 per cent. of the community. Therefore, one could argue that 70 per cent. support in the Assembly meant 70 per cent. support in the country as a whole and therefore widespread acceptance. If we could have achieved that, we could have come here and argued for further powers.
If the Secretary of State now says that we need not only general widespread acceptance but acceptance from two distinct sections of the community—those who believe that Northern Ireland should maintain its position as an integral part of the United Kingdom and those who believe that Northern Ireland should be taken out of the United Kingdom and placed under the jurisdiction of what to many of us is a foreign and hostile State—then he must know that that, if not impossible, is very close to it.
How could those two sections of the community agree on any proposal, because what they are seeking is diametrically opposite? One is seeking a type of devolution that will maintain the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom and at the same time allow us to have some degree of independence—I use that word in its proper context—while the other is looking for a type of devolution that will move Northern Ireland outside the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to formulate a proposition that would be acceptable to both those sections of the community. The Secretary of State must face up to the fact that he will have to be candid with the Committee about what exactly he means by "widespread acceptance throughout the community".
If a proposition achieves 70 per cent. support in the Assembly and has within that 70 per cent., as it must, some Roman Catholic support—I hate to use sectarian terms but the Secretary of State forces me to do so—is the Secretary of State prepared to say that at least there is support from the two religious sections of the community? Many of us believe that, difficult though that may be, it is possible. But it is impossible to get such support from the two political sections of the community.
The Secretary of State should also deal with the aspect of the Social Democratic and Labour Party being a necessary part of the widespread acceptance or the 70 per cent. support in the Assembly. During the meeting that my colleagues and I had with him and the Earl of Gowrie it was made clear to us that the SDLP was not an essential element in the 70 per cent. The only reason that it would have been necessary to make that comment would have been if the 70 per cent. support was itself a trigger mechanism for Parliament to approve the proposal. We would not have needed the SDLP and would not have been asking whether it had to be part of the 70 per cent. if it was not essential for it to be so. The Secretary of State, in saying that the SDLP was not an essential part of the 70 per cent., indicated that the support of the Official Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and perhaps the Alliance Party and/or some independents would be sufficient because there would then be support from both sections of the religious community.
The Secretary of State must tell us whether he is now saying that we must have, if not the SDLP, which believes that Northern Ireland should no longer be part of the United Kingdom, IRA supporters like the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Carron) or the Irish Independence Party? Must we have someone of that Litter or pedigree? The Secretary of State had better make that clear to the people of Northern Ireland, because they will


be reluctant to permit their politicians to be part of an Assembly that has the sole purpose of attempting to achieve agreement with the like of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone or, at best—I say that with some caution—the representatives of the SDLP.
Some of us have always argued that district councils should have additional powers only provided it was consistent with having a devolved Government and Parliament in Northern Ireland. But if under the Bill, as intimated by the Secretary of State in his intervention, the Assembly can have only the initial functions of a scrutinising, consultative or deliberative role, some hon. Members might say that it would be better for local government immediately to have additional powers because on the present basis additional powers will not come to the Assembly. The Secretary of State should be frank with the Committee so that hon. Members may know what attitude to adopt not only to the Bill but to the whole prospect of devolution for Northern Ireland.

7 pm

Mr. James A. Dunn: May I echo the final words of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and beg the Secretary of State to be absolutely frank. I know that he will be, but there are several interpretations in the Committee of how the Secretary of State will draft the appropriate amendment to discharge the undertaking given to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) and others associated with similar drafting seeking a further protection above the 70 per cent. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) probably put his finger on the point, although he must go much further in his elucidation, when he said that under clause 1(4)(a) 70 per cent. acceptance meant that a proposal would automatically come before the House. That is correct in the way that the Bill has been considered up to now. If there were an amendment to clause 2(2) it might well be that the further qualification which the Secretary of State gave an obligation to the House to examine and to bring back on Report would then be examined.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, as others did, that once the clause comes before the House on the basis of a 70 per cent. majority of those sitting in the Assembly at this time, and goes through this House, it will be left to the Secretary of State, when it comes back for an Order in Council, to give what he considers to be a realistic view on whether it has widespread community support.
I do not think that it is the true situation because the House would not willingly take to that happening. As I understand it, the 70 per cent. proposal would come before the House automatically and the Secretary of State would then have the responsibility of telling the House whether it had the widespread community support that might be later introduced in the Bill. If the House decides to accept the Secretary of State's recommendation on behalf of the Government, the House will determine whether an Order in Council should be made. If I am wrong, I hope that the Secretary of State will give a clear explanation because there are three distinct interpretations of clause 2, although

in part they are also related to clause 1(4)(a) and (b). I hope that this can be cleared up at the earliest possible opportunity.
I should like to thank the Secretary of State for adopting an unusual way of dealing with a clause during the Committee stage of a Bill taken on the Floor of the House. That has been most helpful. I know that he will try to answer in detail the questions that have been asked of him before the clause is put to the Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman can help us further. There is an element of anxiety. I do not share it but I recognise that it exists. Rather than leave it to the normal procedure of drafting amendments for Report and then putting them down about 10 days before Report, if the Secretary of State could at the earliest opportunity tell us how he intends to amend clause 2, without spelling out, chapter and verse, what will be tabled, it will be very helpful to us.
The Secretary of State has gone much further than many of his colleagues and predecessors in drafting for those of us who requested it his departmental response to the Bill, and advice on each of the amendments and the clauses. Having gone that far, this latest obstacle ought not to be insurmountable. He has engendered a lot of good will in the House, even amongst hon. Members who disagree with the intentions of the Bill. In no circumstances would anyone receive general support who criticised the way in which the Secretary of State has handled the Bill. I am sure that the compliment paid by the right hon. Member for Down, South to the Secretary of State for his presence in the Chamber for the major part of the discussion on this Bill is endorsed by us all. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Down, South would not wish me always to put a cross by what he says, but if he passes that kind of compliment the Secretary of State should take note because I have never known the right hon. Gentleman to say what he does not mean or not mean what he says.
I ask the Secretary of State to clear up this matter. Also, perhaps he will give us the benefit of knowing what advice he has received on the interpretation of "widespread community support".

Mr. W. Benyon: I wish to speak very briefly on clause stand part. I emphasise that it is clause stand part, and I shall not, for exactly the reasons given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. James A. Dunn) make a Second Reading speech.
Quite obviously people have put a different interpretation on what the Secretary of State said. Am I right or not in assuming that if the proposal gets 70 per cent. support from the Assembly nothing can stop that proposal being subject to a decision of this House? I think I am right because I see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nodding.
I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State. What is being proposed in relation to a possible amendment to clause 2 on Report is an indication from the Secretary of State whether he considers that this matter has widespread cross-community support. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) whether I am right in saying that the Secretary of State could say that this criterion was not fulfilled in relation to a proposal of the Assembly, and this House could then take a decision totally at variance with what the Secretary of State has said?

Rev. Martin Smyth: As I understand it, when the Secretary of State reports to the House he will


be reporting as a Government spokesman. I cannot accept the inference in the comment of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) that it will be a free vote. In other words, it will be a whipped vote and we have even seen in this debate how the Whips come in to vote out proposals that are contrary to the Government's views.

Mr. Benyon: We are back to the Whips again. The House will take the decision.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Suppose that there is a debate on the proposals and that does not take place on a motion to take note of the proposals but on a motion to approve. Let us suppose that the House, against the advice of the Secretary of State of the day, votes for approving the proposal. Nothing then happens unless and until the Secretary of State drafts and lays an order. A Secretary of State who said that he did not believe that the criteria were met by the proposal, whatever the House had done, could not be mandated thereupon to bring in an order.

Mr. Benyon: I hope that that will be cleared up when we come to the end of this debate. But I can hardly believe that a Secretary of State would disregard the express wish of the House of Commons.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the Secretary of State stands at the Dispatch Box and says that the 70 per cent. does not meet the criterion of the Bill—I emphasise that—and the House goes against him, how could he, as an honourable man, lay an order to do the very thing that he says is against the law of the country?

Mr. Benyon: I accept that that is a much more valid point than the other.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend says that it is unthinkable that the Secretary of State should act in that way. Surely before 1969 most hon. Members would have said that it was unthinkable that a Government should vote against the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. No one can be sure how the House will vote when something is put before it.

Mr. Benyon: It may well be that this will be the subject of amendment at a later stage. The two Houses of Parliament should be sovereign.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will have second thoughts about including this measure. If deliberations had not been so protracted and disagreeable last week I should have risen to make that point on the previous clause. After a certain time many hon. Members lost interest. However, today's debate is much more productive.
If the Assembly gears itself up to get 70 per cent. for one particular proposal it should go forward. I hope that that aspect can be considered. However, it seems to be unnecessary because when the proposal comes before the House, Ministers will have to make their views known in the debate, and the House will take a decision accordingly. This is dotting the i's and crossing the t's to too great an extent. I hope that it will be reconsidered.
My next point is about timing and has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I do not understand the wording that is used. Are there reasons why there should be more than a certain delay after the decision has been taken before it is implemented? Some more definite wording should be used.
I agree wholeheartedly with those hon. Members who have said that clause 2 is the core—the crux—of the Bill. Hon. Members will decide on the Bill on this clause. I hope that it will be allowed to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Molyneaux: The debate leads one to conclude that it is fortunate that hon. Members have had, and look like having, a fairly extended debate. We did not cover much of the Bill in the course of the last afternoon, evening and early morning on which we considered it. We did not have anything like as wide-ranging a debate as we had, for example, on the amendments to clause 1 of the Bill. I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute and therefore I shall be brief.
In the early hours of Thursday morning I suggested that we should not proceed with clause 2 until we had had an opportunity to sound out opinion and reaction to the Secretary of State's proposals in Northern Ireland. It was not so much the content of the proposals that took many by surprise as the fact that For some unknown reasons—some of which we have now had explained to us, although that does not make them any more acceptable—instead of taking into account what was said about the Bill, on his own initiative, perhaps with a little assistance from the Opposition Front Bench in one of their rare bursts of activity, he produced an amendment that would transform completely clause 2, the Bill and attitudes to it.
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisey). I am not certain that every Member of the Committee is fully seized of the importance of the impact and consequences of what has been said by the Secretary of State, and, what is more important, what has been left unsaid by him.
7.15 pm
I promised that I would convey to the Committee the feelings that I detected in Northern Ireland over the weekend. Although the Secretary of State did not make clear what was in his mind people were greatly alarmed at what they managed to detect from various clues that he left. I can report to the Committee that reaction has been strong. There has been fierce hostility to that which is being proposed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) quoted the words of the task force commander's signal from the South Atlantic. It brings me to the point that on the day when British arms and the bravery of British Service men have succeeded in restoring to the Falkland Islanders the right to live under a Government of their own choosing, the Government who have successfully directed that operation in the South Atlantic—all honour to them for having done so—are seeking to impose upon the unfortunate inhabitants of part of the United Kingdom a system of government that they and their elected representatives utterly repudiate and reject.
It is interesting that that hostile reaction has come most strongly from those who would have styled themselves as devolutionists—as if practically the entire people of Northern Ireland were not devolutionists in one form or another. However, to put it another way, such was the enthusiasm of those who have been most vociferous in their demands for devolution—at any rate in the early stages of this ill-fated initiative—that they perhaps overlooked the destructive nature of the requirement for cross-community consent that has featured so much in this afternoon's debate.
Those people can now clearly see that they have been conned—to use the word of the hon. Member for Antrim, North last Wednesday—or some might say that they have conned themselves. Whatever the case may be, the net effect has been to change the view of those self-styled devolutionists. It is interesting that they now openly declare that although the Secretary of State can, if he is sufficiently determined, and if his colleagues are sufficiently misguided to support him, establish the Assembly, they now see no prospect whatever of progressing to the second stage that, we have been reminded, is supposed to provide a devolved Government for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent the views of my hon. Friends. Will he please qualify his remarks by making it clear to the Committee that we are saying that only on the assumption that the Secretary of State requires that widespread community acceptance should include representatives of either the IRA or the SDLP as essential?

Mr. Molyneaux: I was not beaming my remarks at the hon. Gentleman and his party. I was referring to that wider band of devolution enthusiasts. I am not even criticising them. I have always supported their view and they are entitled to be super-devolutionists if they wish, provided that they take account of the risks inherent in what is proposed.
I have said in this Chamber that it is the official policy of my party that, first, real control over its own affairs should be restored to Northern Ireland, and secondly, that something not very different from what was misguidedly removed in 1972 by a Conservative Government should be restored. My objection to the Bill and to the cross-community consent requirement, which surfaced in my mind as long ago as 8 March, has always been that it is quite impossible to include in the same executive body, in the same Cabinet, people who want to remain part of the United Kingdom and people who want to belong to a foreign republic. Even more important, it is not just those who as individuals might prefer those options, but it is the physical inclusion in the same decision-making body, executive or Cabinet, of those who are pro the union and those who are anti it. It simply cannot be done, and time will prove that this experiment will be no more successful than the others.

Mr. Winnick: When the hon. Member spoke of the decision taken in 1972, is he saying that it was wrong to do away with Stormont? Does he want it to return? If so, he would be saying that he would like the form of devolution that existed for 60 years to be resurrected. Secondly, when the hon. Gentleman talks about people in Northern Ireland who want a link with the Republic, does he now recognise that one of the two main parties here, the Labour Party, at its last conference, made it clear that it would like the reunification of Ireland—of course, by consent—and as a long-term project?

Mr. Molyneaux: If the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) were to read the Hansard proceedings in 1972, he would begin to wonder why I spoke against the abolition of Stormont, why I voted against its abolition, and why I have consistently said since

then that we are entitled to have restored to Northern Ireland the same type of democracy has existed, not just in Northern Ireland for 50 years, but in the United Kingdom for 700 years. If it is good enough for the rest of the United Kingdom, what is wrong with it for Northern Ireland?
The hon. Gentleman has tempted me into a more delicate controversy. I do not want to hurt sensitive minds. He mentioned his party's policy on a link with the Irish Republic. This is not the place for a debate on that subject. I content myself with saying that that policy is a contradiction in terms. The hon. Gentleman used the word "like". He did not say that his party would demand, but that it would like reunification. There are many things in this world that we would like but which we shall not get. His party has ensured that it will get only as far as liking, and that it will never get it, because it says, in a contradictory term, that it must come about by consent of the people of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland, whether they are Protestant or Catholic, will never consent to any such thing in his political lifetime or mine. I am sorry to have allowed myself to be diverted, but I hope that I shall be forgiven for doing so, Mr. Weatherill.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) accurately expressed the frustration that has been felt by the people to whom I referred. Many of them will be driven to—and, perhaps, beyond—the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Antrim, North on 9 June, when he said that we may as well not proceed any further. In my view, many of those people in Northern Ireland and many of us in this Chamber—certainly, the majority of those of us who are present in the Chamber now—take that view.

Mr. Porter: In an earlier intervention I tried to obtain a specific statement from one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in his party. It seems to me that the decision whether one progresses from stage one to stage two lies with the Unionist parties—the DUP or the Official Unionist Party, separately or together. It is inconceivable that 70 per cent., or whatever, in the Assembly could be achieved without the Unionist parties. If those parties are saying that they cannot and will not work with those who oppose their views on the border, what is the point of proceeding? Again I ask, and I think that the Committee is entitled to know: will the Unionist Party make any effort to make this work, or not?

Mr. Molyneaux: The answer to that question is quite simple, if it is left to those who represent the Unionist parties. I was reprimanded on an earlier occasion about the use of the term "cobbled together". So I shall use the term coined by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor). If, after unseemly wheeling and dealing, we reached an agreement based on a 70 per cent. weighted majority, the answer is "Yes". We should face our responsibility, we should form a Government, and we should govern Northern Ireland as well as we did for 50, 60 or 100 years, if it makes it any more agreeable.
The trouble is that the Secretary of State says—and he repeated it in his speech today—that, just in case the Unionist Parties reach 70 per cent., he intends to impose another hurdle, and just in case they surmount that 70 per cent. hurdle, he is to set another hurdle, a second and higher hurdle, and that is cross-community consent. That means not just the consent of people by religion, not just the consent of Protestants and Catholics, but it means the


inclusion of the groups to which the hon. Member for Belfast, East referred a short time ago—Republicans and groups affiliated to the IRA. If that is done the answer is "No". I am not prepared to engage in any such operation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not true that neither in Stormont, nor in the Assembly, nor in the Convention, did Unionist groupings come near 70 per cent? They barely reached 60 per cent.

Mr. Molyneaux: That is true, and it makes it more alarming that the Secretary of State has decided to do another safety-catch operation, just in case, between us, we should attract so much support from the people of Northern Ireland that power would be delivered into our hands. The Secretary of State, and apparently the Government, are determined to prevent that, at all costs. I shall return to another aspect of that matter in a moment.
The hon. Members for Antrim, North and Belfast, East both correctly reported, as they saw it, the statement of the noble Lord, the Minister of State, that the SDLP need not be in the 70 per cent. That is correct. I have no doubt that that was said to them, and I have no doubt that it was said in good faith. They do not have to be in the 70 per cent., because as long as the Secretary of State insists on the cross-community consent requirement, the SDLP and its Republican allies clearly have to be within that. So the fact that the SDLP is not in the 70 per cent. is quite meaningless, because the second trap will ensure that no combination of Unionists will get beyond that on the route.
I want to take up something that was said, very wisely, by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. If this is the best system, and if we assume that the Secretary of State will build an amendment into clause 2 at some stage, and if it is the Government's intention to proceed, despite all that has been said in this Committee, to the 70 per cent. and the cross-community consent requirements, I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East that we should seriously consider, whether there is any point in going further, and whether we should not be wiser, as he suggested, to scrap for ever the whole nonsense and phoney make-believe of talking about powers of scrutiny, debate and advice that this Assembly will have. The Assembly will not go beyond that. Would it not be better to settle here and now, as he suggested, for local government, from which we could progress?
7.30 pm
The Secretary of State said that the local government route would not lead to a solution. I have not used his precise words but that is what he meant. You, Mr. Weatherill, have listened carefully to the debates. You will have detected that no one on the Opposition Benches or, indeed, anyone on the Government side has ever suggested that local government is the solution. I have never believed that there is a single solution. We ought to be coming back to the words of the Queen's Speech at the opening of the present Session of Parliament. We should, in a sensible and progressive way, be setting about that which was promised in that Queen's Speech. We should be looking at ways and means of giving to the people of Northern Ireland more real control over their own affairs.
We are not talking about local government being an alternative in the sense that it will provide a form of high-wire act for the Secretary of State and others. It is not intended to do that. It is a necessary step. No matter what results from the debate or from the Bill, local government

will have to be restored even to the existing district councils. Stormont or no Stormont, Assembly or no Assembly, Executive or no Executive, that will be the case.
I cannot understand the Secretary of State's constant assertion that if we proceeded to give powers to the existing district councils progress thereafter would be more difficult. Why should that alienate the so-called minority and why should it, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, alienate the Catholic minority? Which Catholic or Protestant will be alienated simply because the Antrim borough council decides that it will spend £12,000 on resurfacing the Ardmore road as opposed to the Crosshill road? How does a sectarian issue from that decision? Which Protestant or Catholic will be antagonised simply because John Smith will be permitted to add a working kitchen and a new bathroom to his bungalow? Why will he be antagonised if that decision is made by Antrim borough council instead of by a back-room boy in the planning office of the Department of the Environment in Ballymena? The Secretary of State has a duty to explain to the Committee the meaning of the objections that apparently have been poured into his ear by anonymous persons.
The Secretary of State has not told us which parties have been consulted. I hope that the Democratic Unionist Party will be able to declare whether it has been consulted on that point—on the nitty-gritty, nuts and bolts of restoring powers to local government—and whether it has given its assessment of what objections could arise in any such policy.
On 8 March 1982 the Secretary of State dropped a bombshell. He said to our deputation that he had now made up his mind firmly on the 70 per cent. requirement—which he had not done before—and, after a slight pause, he said there would also be cross-community consent. The Secretary of State may recall what I said after I had recovered from the shock. I asked whether he realised that he was playing with weeping gelignite. That is the only accurate description of his proposal. I sometimes wonder whether those who advise the Secretary of State are in some way deliberately setting out to torpedo the Bill in its entirety and to leave only that part that makes provision for the setting up of an Assembly. I am certain that there are those in the governmental machine who do not want the structure to proceed beyond the Assembly. I do not accuse the Secretary of State of double-dealing or of insincerity but I ask him to reconsider and to reflect on the advice that he has been given over past months and to wonder whether he has been the victim of those influences to which I have referred.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The essential problem of clause 2, concerns cross-community support and what it means. There is a worrying imprecision in the idea—what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) might call flexibility. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, it is dangerous to have similar phrases, such as "acceptable to the two communities" and "widespread acceptance throughout the community", which have different meanings.
The Union has widespread acceptance throughout the community—the border polls show it—but it certainly does not have widespread or substantial acceptance among the minority, if the minority is defined as those who are


not in favour of the Union. That is what the definition will be if the formula is to mean anything. The Secretary of State's definition is crucial because with the 50 per cent. plus one it will be entirely up to him. If it is 70 per cent. it will not be entirely up to him—certainly not in the debate on the proposals in the House—but it will be when it comes to the decision whether to bring forward an order to give effect to the proposals. If the minority, in that narrow and Republican sense, agrees to devolution it must be on terms of, and as a step to, a united Ireland. Why else should it agree? There is no other reason why it should agree because that is its total and long-term objective. That is not necessarily a villainous objective, nor is it necessarily wrong. It is simply very different from what the majority wants. The minority simply will not find a way of coming together with the majority on any agreed form of devolution.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has suggested several times during our debate that the form of devolution that he believes might emerge and wants to see emerge would strengthen the Union. If that is what the minority see coming from the proposals, the minority will not play. Therefore, there is a basic contradiction which cannot be overcome, especially when those who may not be so firm or clear-sighted in their Republican sentiments lay themselves open and by their readiness to consider co-operation invite pressure from their more violent colleagues. The men of violence and those who are not interested in any settlement seek the ungovernability of Northern Ireland. That is their short and medium-term objective.
Of course, even the Republican minority might co-operate with the majority on matters such as housing and other everyday, mundane matters. This has, I suspect attracted my right hon. Friend to think that there is a greater possibility for this type of co-operation within his formula than actually exists. On the contrary, the formula will ensure that it is the fundamentals upon which the community is divided that will be highlighted, and it will write into the constitution a basic contest of political will.
Of all the demerits of the formula and the procedures for achieving devolution that we have discussed, I wish to dwell on the issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and taken up by others. My hon. Friend observed that, whatever the formula and however willing the Assembly might be to operate it, it would not be able to choose executive devolution rather than legislative devolution. It would not be able to choose local government in the Great Britain sense. That option is not available under the Bill, and I am rather surprised by its absence.
According to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the great merit of the Bill lies in its do-it-yourself constitution for the Province—in other words, let the representatives of the people in the Assembly work out their own salvation. The only proviso, which appears in the clause, is that it must be acceptable to both communities. Paragraph 5 of the introduction to the White Paper states:
The Government believes that the politicians of Northern Ireland have an inescapable responsibility to work out an acceptable scheme for themselves. The Government will institute any reasonable scheme of administration which has the support of a substantial majority of the Assembly and is acceptable to both sides of the community.

However, the do-it-yourself kit that my right hon. Friend is providing in the Bill is incomplete because local government is not a choice. It is ruled out in advance. It is a form of administration that the Assembly can decide upon, and it may be part of its proposals, but if the House of Commons were to supply it amending legislation would be necessary. Every impediment is being put in the way of a local government solution being adopted.
Why is that? Did my right hon. Friend forget it? There was no discussion of a local government approach in the White Paper. Did my right hon. Friend decide that the local government option was one that he would prefer the Assembly not to choose? I believe from what my right hon. Friend has said that he fears that all the problems of minority acceptance would be just as great as full devolution without the attractions for either community. However, bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's philosophy, which is expressed in the White Paper, his speeches and his briefings, the Bill should offer the choice of both legislative and executive devolution. That would be in line with my right hon. Friend's advocacy on the merits of the Bill. It would leave the elected representatives in Northern Ireland to make up their minds on behalf of their electorates.
I urge my right hon. Friend even now to find a way of bringing forward such an amendment in this place or in another place. I ask him to ensure that the double choice will be available. Such an undertaking would make this a better Bill and a more honest one and would facilitate its progress.
I believe that for the most prosaic but most mistaken of reasons my right hon. Friend did not take the local government option seriously. He believes that no one wants it. He may be right, but I do not think so. Of course, in the terms of his overall approach, that is not a matter for him to decide. My right hon. Friend shakes his head in disagreement. I am sure that the Committee will be grateful if he expands on the reasons why the local government approach was rejected when he replies to the debate. His philosophy indicates that it should be an option for the Assembly to adopt. If my surmise is correct, but clearly it is not judging by my right hon. Friend's reaction, my right hon. Friend was too impressed by what others said to him.
7.45 pm
The White Paper received a universal condemnation and my right hon. Friend says that we must not take criticism too seriously. He argues that people will say one thing in the warm-up to an election but operate differently and, in his terms, more rationally afterwards. Criticism of his overall approach has come from all quarters, and, according to my right hon. Friend, that shows that his proposals are non-partisan. I am sorry that he did not show equal scepticism of the criticisms and arguments against local government, which have come from many quarters.
I agree that the argument against local government is widespread but it is not very convincing. A pamphlet was produced by the devolutionist group of the Official Unionists—"Maintaining the Union". It was sent to me to illustrate why integration, whatever that may be, is a nonstarter. I read it and it confirmed my view that the local government route has much to be said for it, even unconsciously by those who are hostile to it.
The authors of the pamphlet appear to want devolution primarily as an insurance against a Westminster sell-out.


I was struck particularly by the small amount of space that they gave to what they wanted to do politically in Northern Ireland. In the space that they did give to it, what did they say that they wanted to do? They say that they want to take control of housing, education and libraries. Those are the classic county council and district council services that are enjoyed on the mainland. There was no indication of how the authors would use legislative devolution and legislative powers as opposed to administrative powers in the day-to-day running of the Province.

Mr. Richard Body: Does my hon. Friend agree that the opinion polls, of which we have heard so much, appear to confirm that one inference to be drawn is that what the people of Northern Ireland would wish is exactly what was set out in the pamphlet, although they may not appreciate it?

Mr. Lloyd: I have read the results of a great many opinion polls in Northern Ireland. They repay a careful and not a cursory study. I do not want to argue about the particular findings of particular polls. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a certain impatience with that practice. I understand that view and, to a large extent, I share it. Nevertheless, I shall overcome my reluctance and quote a couple of figures which I think are significant. I have not heard them mentioned in Committee. The finding of one poll was that over 90 per cent. of the members of each community, however defined—I cannot remember exactly how the pollsters defined the communities; it might have been precisely the way in which my right hon. Friend will define them or slightly differently—wanted the laws in Northern Ireland to be as close as possible to those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Now what is the point of using legislative devolution to pass the same laws that we have in Westminster? My right hon. Friend has been part of the process himself. He rightly went to the trouble of translating the Employment Act 1980 into Northern Ireland legislation.
That was very much in the spirit, as I understand it, of the devolved Stormont Assembly from 1920. Efforts were made to ensure that the Province kept, in legislative terms, roughly in parallel with the rest of the United Kingdom. There was, therefore—I believe that there still is—no pressure or desire for law that was different from that of the rest of the United Kingdom. However, there is a real hunger to run local services locally. The pressure for legislative devolution comes, in my judgment, from what I have heard in the Chamber, from what I have read and from my one and only visit to Northern Ireland, which I found illuminating in informing my opinions primarily from the Unionist fear of a sell-out. On the other hand, there is the Republican desire for power sharing, to make it possible to insist on the development of an Irish dimension that, in the longer term, will lead to an arrangement completely different from what the majority want.
There is a third element. The Secretary of State believes that he needs a constitutional construct in which he can set the two communities in a neutralising equipoise. The trick, if he brings it off, will be like riding a bicycle with a stick with an egg on the end of it balanced on one's nose. It is very clever. It might be done for a time, but a loud noise or a sudden alarm would bring the whole thing down. While one is waiting for it to come down, there is the tension and instability that that prospect must create.
As legislative devolution is remote as a durable arrangement but the desire for executive devolution is real though unacknowledged for a variety of reasons, the local government option that is excluded by the Bill is the only one capable of bringing the reality of power to the Assembly.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who has learnt a great deal in taking an interest in Northern Ireland, will allow me to add another element to his picture of the curious sources of desire for legislative devolution. Anyone who has watched Northern Ireland legislation being passed through the House during the past eight years must have been staggered that the Government machine was prepared to tolerate, at great effort and with loss to the integrity of the debate, so unnecessary a waste of the time of the House as this mechanism for duplicating the law of Great Britain in Northern Ireland.
It would not be long before the hon. Gentleman realised that inside the machinery of government in the Northern Ireland Office there was a cell that was absolutely determined that, whatever else happened, the law for Northern Ireland should be kept separate from that of the rest of the United Kingdom. That was the reason that was disclosed in the document that was read by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) in a previous debate. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting him or adding to his picture.

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He draws a logical conclusion. In my brief connections with the Northern Ireland Office I have never located the cell in question, but there is circumstantial and external evidence that something approaching it may be there.

Mr. Prior: Oh, no.

Mr. Lloyd: If that is regarded as being in any way offensive, of course I withdraw it, but I do not think it is, because there is nothing dishonourable in believing that the future of Northern Ireland is best concerned with a united Ireland. We know that some hon. Members hold that view. It is to be expected. However, that proposition and its implications should be recognised and debated fully in the House.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Surely it is dishonourable if it is not honestly stated.

Mr. Lloyd: We are beginning to develop an argument that I do not wish to pursue. I do not see why an official should make his views publicly known. His arguments are properly presented to his Ministers and they properly draw from them those conclusions that they believe are right. I see nothing reprehensible in a variety of views, including those which look to eventual reunification of Ireland, being held in the Department.
I am sure that the 70 per cent. and the 50 per cent. plus one formula will prove unworkable. We are therefore driven back to the local government solution. An active Secretary of State, such as my right hon. Friend, who is determined to use his powers, is all that is needed. Perhaps he should be backed by a bill of rights and an ombudsman to ensure that there is no discrimination. I understand from what he has said that my right hon. Friend accepts that as well. Nevertheless, I am sure that he regards that as an altogether too glib a solution to the problem as he sees it. It might prevent discrimination, but neither of us believes that it will be sufficient to reconcile the minority and to


bring two communities into partnership. In that sense, there is no solution in the short or the medium term—and who knows about the long term?
The error of the Bill and this clause, and, with respect, of my right hon. Friend, is the belief that it is possible to bring together deliberately, in one go, in the full glare of publicity and with an election at the end of it, two political antitheses. It is the completeness of the ambition of the Bill to bring the two communities together wherein lies its inevitable destruction. The way forward—there is one, rather than a solution—must be quietly and by keeping away from any grand gestures.
Anything that smacks of solutions in the sense that I have described must be doomed. I do not suggest, nor do I believe, that other hon. Members who pursue the same line envisage a solution in that complete sense. Certainly I envisage it as strengthening local government in Northern Ireland by degrees—first a lower tier and then perhaps an upper one. I see that not as a way of solving the majority-minority problem, which is currently insoluble, but of making administrative sense of Northern Ireland, of lightening the burden on Ministers and of passing back some of the responsibility for local services in Northern Ireland to local people. The House should concentrate on improving the supervision of councils and scrutinising legislation, not because it is the way to bring the two communities together, but because they are improvements to the form of government that we necessarily have and must have. That indirect way will not bring together the divided community, but I suspect that the way that my right hon. Friend has chosen will deepen it. If local government law works out in the way in which I, some of my hon. Friends and, I suspect, my right hon. Friend believe that it can it will ameliorate the problems of community divide that are now insoluble.

Mr. Prior: I have already made one long speech on the clause. It will be for the convenience of the Committee if I reply briefly and take up several of the important points that have been raised.
I shall deal immediately with a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). He said that the Bill, especially this clause, was intended to give Northern Ireland politicians an opportunity to play a more responsible part. Despite some of what has been said, I still believe that that is precisely that the Bill tries to and can do. No one doubts that that is necessary. No one doubts that there is and has been for several years, a political vacuum in Northern Ireland that is growing and having a deleterious effect on the life of the community, whether it be from a security point of view, an economic point of view, or the lack of new political faces coming forward to be willing to play a part in the life of the Province. I strongly hold that view. I believe that it has much support across the community in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Julian Amery: rose—

Mr. Prior: No, I have already spoken at great length and it will be for the convenience of the Committee for me to be brief. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury that the flexibility that is written into the Bill is helpful. That is well illustrated by the discussion that we have had on the clause today.
We begin with the proposition that any form of government in Northern Ireland must enjoy support from

both traditions in sufficient measure to have stability and to help solve the security, economic and political problems.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) believes in devolved government. He wants the old Stormont back and, indeed, never wanted to get rid of it. I believe that that view is completely unacceptable to almost every right hon. and hon. Member, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The right hon. Gentleman does not believe that it is possible to have a straight majority rule Government in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, so he backs integration. That is the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's position. Thus, the hon. Member for Antrim, South and the right hon. Member for Down, South both argue against the Bill, but for entirely different reasons. Both dislike the Bill, but their reasons are different. The hon. Member for Antrim, South dislikes it because it is a form of devolved government that implies that both traditions must at least be recognised, while the right hon. Member for Down, South says that that is all nonsense because it can never be done that way so we must go for integration.

8 pm

Mr. Molyneaux: My case against the Bill is that, whatever else it may provide, it does not provide devolved government. No one has yet been able to show how this weird scheme will ever progress beyond the first stage. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for listening patiently to the whole of this debate, as he listened to the other debates. He must by now have reached the conclusion that although he may succeed in establishing an Assembly, neither he nor any successor of his will ever get beyond that. Therefore, the Bill cannot provide devolved government, which is the aim of my party.

Mr. Prior: Here again, we differ. That is a counsel of despair and defeat. It is tantamount to saying that the people of Northern Ireland, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, are not capable of seeking to reach agreement on these issues. Given the economic, political and security circumstances of Northern Ireland, I simply do not believe that that view can long prevail.
Even if the hon. Gentleman is right, however, the Bill at least has the merit that it does not force the people of Northern Ireland to have devolved government. They can have their Assembly, their scrutinising powers and their committee system, which I believe is very important, and go no futher than that. Only if they want devolved powers they make the leap to seek some agreement between the traditions and to move forward as a result of that.
That support is expressed in the Bill, as it must be, in the phrase:
widespread support throughout the community".
Deciding whether that criterion has been satisfied is not just a mathematical calculation but an assessment whether, on the balance of evidence, the proposals have enough support to be successful. In many ways, it would be more clear cut if there were some automatic standard by which that assessment could be made. However, our objective is not tidiness but peace and a better opportunity for all the people to share. Therefore, it is more important to secure the correct mix of support than to adhere to any predetermined formula.
That clearly presents difficulties. How can we establish a sensitive and realistic appraisal of the degree of support throughout the community without leaving the decision to the whim of the Secretary of State?
The Bill seeks to provide a double answer. First, it says that the scheme must be worked out by the Northern Ireland politicians in their Assembly. It is up to them. If they do not make a proposal or if they cannot agree among themselves, there will be no progress towards devolved government. The Bill does not specify any particular form of devolved government, any combination of parties or any particular membership of an Executive. It leaves the parties in the Assembly to find that for themselves.
Secondly, if an assessment is to be made as to whether there is the degree of support that we define as
widespread support throughout the community",
we believe that that assessment should be made in this House. The House has complete discretion to decide whether it is prepared to grant devolved powers on the basis of a particular scheme devised by Northern Ireland politicians. Incidentally, I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) that if the House voted down the advice of the Secretary of State, presumably speaking on behalf of the Government, although there is nothing on the face of the Bill to say that the Secretary of State would have to take further action, it is inconceivable that the matter should be left there. It could not be left there. Indeed, the House would not be content to leave it there. After all, we are dealing with a very important part of the United Kingdom which has suffered enormously in the past few years. The House could not simply vote for things or throw them out and leave the matter there. If anything of that nature occurred, it would have to be given further consideration by the House. It would not be within the general purposes, democracy or understanding of the House if that were not so.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prior: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but very reluctantly.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The clause under discussion begins:
At any time after proposals have been laid before Parliament under section 1 above Her Majesty may by Order".
That really means the Secretary of State, of course, but no time limit is laid down.

Mr. Prior: I shall come to that point, which was also made by the right hon. Member for Down, South.
The Secretary of State's role in this is to act as a filter and adviser. If there is not 70 per cent. support, he need not lay the proposal before the House. If there is, he cannot deny the Assembly access to the House. In every case, of course, he will advise the House whether in his opinion the proposals might work and whether they have the necessary support to bring stability. The House would also no doubt be advised by others and would then make up its mind.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) asked whether I could strengthen the obligation upon the Secretary of State to satisfy himself before bringing an order that the proposals had
widespread support throughout the community
along the lines that the White Paper clearly stipulated. Although implicit in paragraphs (a) and (b) but particularly

paragraph (b), of clause 1(4), that is not stipulated in the order—making power in clause 2, so there is no specific reference to this point in clause 2.
As I have said, I wish to consider that point again as it is a difficult one. If there is a means of ensuring that the clear purposes that have always been set out by the Government as applying to clause 1(4)(a) are stipulated also in the order—making process under clause 2, I will certainly seek to do that. That also deals with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the first three words of the clause—"at any time". We considered those words carefully when going through the Bill. It is possible that, although the House might want to give general approval to devolution of powers under clause 1(4)(a) or (b), there might be some matters that require further consideration. The House might ask the Government. or the Secretary of State to reconsider one or two matters. We therefore thought it right to allow time for the proposals to be laid before Parliament.
Clearly there must not be an indefinite time. It should be a few months, if necessary. If the Assembly put forward proposals and the House decided, in principle, to accept them subject, perhaps, to some minor changes, it would be to the great advantage of the Secretary of State and the House not to have a long interlude and not to waste much time. Otherwise people in Northern Ireland, having geared themselves up, would rightly be impatient with the operations of the House. That is why we used the words "at any time".

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can consider an alternative formulation which would not leave the clause open to the interpretation that he himself repudiated—perhaps an expression such as "as soon as convenient". To the ordinary reader the words "at any time" imply an indefinite time. I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman suggested a period as short as two months as his assessment of what would be the practice envisaged.

Mr. Prior: A practical difficulty has been raised by some hon. Members. It might be necessary to split a Department by Order in Council under existing powers before a devolution order was made. If so, that would take some time to happen. However, I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's request and without giving any commitment, I shall see whether a better form of words can be found.
Some of my hon. Friends referred to local government. I have a great deal of sympathy with their general point. However, I should like them to have some sympathy for me. I have been trying not only to get the community to work together but to support, above all, the forces of law and order. I do not want to take any action that would make that more difficult. By going down the local government route now we would be alienating a number of people or a part of the community that we need to get and keep on our side if security is to improve. There are too many regrettable instances where that is still not the case.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Secretary of State spell out two aspects? It has been regularly said that the Bill will lead to greater stability, security and economic progress.


At no time have the Government spelt out how that will happen in the next 18 months, and that is what we are anxious about.

Mr. Prior: We are not referring to only the next 18 months. We must take a long-term view of the problems of Northern Ireland. I am taking a long-term view and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, too. Paragraph 3 of the introduction to the White Paper states:
Political stability, economic recovery and the defeat of terrorism go hand in hand. Political instability discourages the domestic and international investment so vitally needed to create confidence, prosperity and jobs.
In my task of seeking to increase prosperity—

Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. We have had two extremely helpful speeches by the Secretary of State. We have had enormously interesting and valuable speeches from both sides of the House and from several different parties. But in his last useful remarks the Secretary of State made a number of points that I know that other Members of the Committee would like to examine further. As I see that there is a possibility that the Patronage Secretary may think otherwise—

Mr. Lawrence: It is not a hypothetical point.

Mr. Gorst: It is not a hypothetical point because I can see the position in which the Patronage Secretary is sitting. Could you, Mr. Weatherill, rule on that point for us?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): It is not nearly as hypothetical as it was the other evening.

Mr. Prior: I was about to conclude my remarks. I was referring to the various paragraphs forming the introduction to part 1 of the White Paper. They give some indication of why the Government are pressing forward with the Bill under difficult circumstances.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr.Michael Jopling): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the question be now put.

Question put, That the question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 157, Noes 29.

Division No. 206]
[8.18 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Alton, David
Carlisle, John (LutonWest)


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cartwright, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Chalker, Mrs, Lynda


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cockeram, Eric


Best, Keith
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, John


Blackburn, John
Crawshaw, Richard


Bonsor, SirNicholas
Critchley, Julian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell,Stephen


Bowden,Andrew
Dunn, James A.


Boyson,Dr Rhodes
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Braine,SirBernard
Eggar,Tim


Bright,Graham
Elliott,SirWilliam


Brooke, Hon Peter
Field,Frank


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Butcher,John
Freud,Clement





Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Percival,Sir lan


Garel-Jones,Tristan
Prior, Rt Hon James


Glyn, Dr Alan
Rathbone,Tim


Goodlad,Alastair
Renton,Tim


Greenway, Harry
RhodesJames, Robert


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
RhysWilliams,SirBrandon


Griffiths,Peter Portsm'thN)
Ridley,HonNicholas


Grimond, RtHon J.
Ridsdale,SirJulian


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Roberts,Albert(Normanton)


Hannam,John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Hawksley,Warren
Roper,John


Hayhoe, Barney
Rossi, Hugh


Henderson,Barry
Royle,Sir Anthony


Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Holland,Philip(Carlton)
Sainsbury,Hon Timothy


Hooson,Tom
Sandelson,Neville


Horam,John
Scott,Nicholas


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)
Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)


Hurd,Rt Hon Douglas
Shelton,William(Streatham)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)


Kaberry,SirDonald
Silvester, Fred


Lang, Ian
Sims, Roger


Latham,Michael
Smith,Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lee, John
Speed, Keith


Lennox-Boyd,HonMark
Speller,Tony


Lewis,Kenneth(Rutland)
Spence,John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, lan (Havant &amp;W'loo)
Squire,Robin


Loveridge,John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Luce,Richard
Stevens,Martin


Lyell,Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
StradlingThomas,J.


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McNally,Thomas
Temple-Morris,Peter


Marland,Paul
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Marlow,Antony
Thompson,Donald


Mates,Michael
Thornton,Malcolm


Mather,Carol
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Mawby, Ray
vanStraubenzee,Sir W.


Mawhinney,DrBrian
Vaughan,Dr Gerard



Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin
Viggers,Peter


Mayhew,Patrick
Waddington,David


Mellor,David
Wainwright,R. (Colne V)


Mills,Iain(Meriden)
Wakeham,John


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Waller, Gary


Moate, Roger
Warren,Kenneth


Monro,Sir Hector
Wellbeloved,James


Montgomery,Fergus
Wells,Bowen


Morgan, Geraint
Wells,John(Maidstone)


Needham,Richard
Wickenden,Keith


Newton,Tony
Wolfson,Mark


Onslow,Cranley
Young, Sir George (Action)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)



Parris, Matthew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patten,John (Oxford)
Mr, David Hunt and


Pattie,Geoffrey
Mr, Archie Hamilton.


Penhaligon, David





NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
McCusker,H.


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
McQuade,John


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Molyneaux,James


Body,Richard
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Brown,Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Budgen,Nick
Powell,Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Cranborne,Viscount
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Cryer,Bob
Skinner,Dennis


Dunlop,John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Farr,John
Stanbrook,Ivor


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Walker, B. (Perth)


Gardiner,George(Reigate)
Wigley,Dafydd


Goodhart,SirPhilip



Gorst,John
Tellers for the Noes:


Kilfedder,James A.
Mr. Christopher Murphy and


Lawrence,lvan
Mr. William Ross.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The committee divided: Ayes 146, Noes 29.

Division No. 207]
[8.30 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Lyell, Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Alton, David
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Arnold, Tom
McNally, Thomas


Aspinwall, Jack
Marland, Paul


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Marlow, Antony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Mates, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Mather, Carol


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Mawby, Ray


Berry, Hon Anthony
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Best, Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Mayhew, Patrick


Blackburn, John
Mellor, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Bowden, Andrew
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Moate, Roger


Braine, Sir Bernard
Monro, Sir Hector


Bright, Graham
Montgomery, Fergus


Brooke, Hon Peter
Needham, Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Newton, Tony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Butcher, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Parris, Matthew


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Patten, John (Oxford)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cartwright, John
Penhaligon, David


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Percival, Sir Ian


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Prior, Rt Hon James


Chapman, Sydney
Rathbone, Tim


Cockeram, Eric
Renton, Tim


Colvin, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Cope, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Crawshaw, Richard
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Dorrell, Stephen
Roper, John


Dunn, James A.
Rossi, Hugh


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R


Eggar, Tim
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Elliott, Sir William
Sandelson, Neville


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Freud, Clement
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Goodlad, Alastair
Silvester, Fred


Greenway, Harry
Sims, Roger


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Speed, Keith


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Speller, Tony


Gummer, John Selwyn
Spence, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hawksley, Warren
Squire, Robin


Hayhoe, Barney
Steel, Rt Hon David


Henderson, Barry
Stevens, Martin


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hooson, Tom
Temple-Morris, Peter


Horam, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Donald


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Thornton, Malcolm


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lang, Ian
Waddington, David


Lee, John
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wakeham, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, lan (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Warren, Kenneth


Loveridge, John
Wellbeloved, James





Wells, Bowen
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, John (Maidstone)



Wickenden, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. David Hunt and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Archie Hamilton.




NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
McCusker, H.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
McQuade, John


Body, Richard
Molyneaux, James


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Morgan, Geraint


Budgen, Nick
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Cranborne, Viscount
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Dunlop, John
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Farr, John
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Walker, B. (Perth)


Gorst, John



Kilfedder, James A.
Tellers for the Noes:


Latham, Michael
Mr. Christopher Murphy and


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. William Ross.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Question accordingly agreed to

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

SUSPENSION OF DIRECT RULE

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Before the Committee moves on to discuss the next two amendments that have been scheduled for selection, could you guide the Committee? Amendment No. 103 in my name and amendment (a) to that have been selected for discussion whereas amendment No. 137 tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) and myself is not selected for discussion. That latter amendment relates to a five-year period. The main two amendments that relate to a 10-year period and a two-year period have been selected. Is it possible for us to refer, en passant, to the five-year amendment though that has not been officially selected?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Your ruling will be keenly awaited as it appears to be a point of great curiosity and, possibly, of important precedent. You have been good enough to select the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and myself that seeks to leave out "ten" and insert "two". That raises the question whether an hon. Member would have a better chance of his amendment being selected and being able to address the Committee if he amended his own amendment rather than tabled another amendment parallel with it. It could be argued that our procedure is deficient in the inadequate opportunities it allows to an individual Member to display an array of alternatives between which the Committee would have the opportunity of choosing. You might, in your wisdom, either consider that the hon. Member should have been advised to amend his own amendment or you might be able to bring it within your discretion to regard his substantive amendment No. 137 as being, in effect, an amendment to his amendment. I hope that that further submission will not be taken. Mr. Weatherill, as a sign of ingratitude or dissatisfaction at your eye having fallen favourably on amendment (a).

Mr. Farr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I tabled the amendment suggesting a 10-year period but after consultation with colleagues I was told that it might be thought to be a wrecking amendment. Nothing is further from the truth. On second thoughts I decided that I had another string to my bow and I tabled the "five years" amendment as an alternative that might be more acceptable to the Chair.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for explaining in that way. I have selected amendment No. 103 and amendment (a) to it. I have not selected amendment No. 137, but it will be in order to refer to five years or any other period which hon. Members believe to be appropriate.

Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Can you advise us further about the right of Back Benchers to guard themselves against premature closure by executive action? I make no complaint that the closure on the last debate was premature. I should have been pleased to speak, although I did not rise to my feet.
On the last two occasions, the tendency has been to move the closure with speed in the early hours. On one occasion I rose in an effort to clarify the rights of Back Benchers. The other night you said that to suggest that the Patronage Secretary was about to apply to close the debate was a hypothetical point. I sat down, the closure was moved and it was too late to raise a point of order.
This evening, Mr. Weatherill, you have added a gloss to the concept of the hypothetical point of order because you told my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who complained about a premature closure, that the question was not as hypothetical as it was last time. It would assist if you could explain whether that is a refinement upon the concept. If it is, it has the practical effect that there may be a moment in time that did not exist the other night, when a Back Bencher can get to his feet, raise a point of order and make an effort to forestall the premature closure of a debate.
I understood you to say the other night, Mr. Weatherill, that there was no moment of time between a hypothetical application and the moving of a closure. Tonight you appear to be saying that the concept is not as hypothetical as it was last time.

The Chairman: I am bound by the Standing Orders. If the hon. Member refers to Standing Order No. 30 he will see the exact position. Whether a closure is approved is a matter for the Committee. I do not decide. I put the matter to the Committee and the Committee decides.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Can you confirm that it will be possible to have Divisions on both amendment No. 103 and amendment (a)? If it should be the desire of the Committee, having had a full debate on the amendment to the amendment, that there should be a vote on the Question being put, in the event that we then vote on amendment (a), do I assume that it would be possible for the Committee to return to discussing the substantive amendment No. 103 and that, in the event that we debate the substantive amendment, it might then be necessary for the Patronage Secretary, if he should so desire, to move a separate closure motion?

The Chairman: Let me clear up this matter. There can arise two votes on amendment No. 103 and amendment (a) to that amendment. I shall call the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) to move his amendment. Then I shall call the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to move his amendment to the amendment. When that is done, the debate will then take place on the amendment to the amendment. The subsequent vote will take place on that. If that succeeds, that amendment is made. If it falls, then we may have a vote on amendment No. 103.

Mr. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I follow your guidance so far but, as I understand it, we then return to a possible debate on amendment No. 103. If it should be the view of the Patronage Secretary or anyone else in the Committee, that we have had sufficient debate on both amendment No. 103 and amendment (a), will it be necessary before we proceed to a second vote on amendment No. 103, for a second closure motion to be moved, if the Committee has debated both amendments in the same debate?

The Chairman: A further debate will not arise. As the hon. Member will see, the amendments are bracketed. Separate votes may take place but not separate debates.

Mr. Farr: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in page 6, line 11, leave out 'one year' and insert 'ten years'.
The purpose of the amendment is to bring some stability to the Province in the event of the occurrence mentioned in paragraph 1(b) of schedule 1, which provides that if an order for devolution has to be revoked, direct rule and the interim period will run again for one year, starting from the date of revocation, and will then again be subject to annual renewal under section 1(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. As the schedule stands, if there is to be possibly an annual re-run of the procedure, I do not believe that that will be anything other than conducive to considerable political and social unrest.
My right hon. Friend has repeatedly said—he said it again today several times—that the political situation in Northern Ireland is tender. Nothing is more likely to aggravate or inflame it than the lack of some form of stability of the type suggested in the amendment. I referred earlier to amendment No. 137 in my name which suggested five years instead of one year. That amendment was not selected for debate, but I was glad to have the assurance of the Chair that I could refer to it. Perhaps a five-year period from the point of view of the Secretary of State would be preferable to a 10-year period. The reason I have suggested the 10-year period is that, if one is sure that there will be another upheaval in less than a decade, it can only be conducive to social and political unrest and not to good and sound government. What we want to ensure is that the Government stop playing shuttlecock and battledore with Northern Ireland. Having a 10-year period instead of one year will introduce far greater stability.
I can imagine nothing worse for the Department concerned, for its efficiency or for morale, than to be subjected to the risk of having its role changed rapidly from year to year. Nobody who is not a Member for Northern Ireland has a greater admiration than I for the civil servants in Northern Ireland. The departmental civil servants in Northern Ireland—and I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary nodding assent—have done a splendid job in adverse conditions. To put it mildly,


they do not have the public support, either in or out of the House, that they should have. The role of civil servants is one that I have always admired, but especially in Northern Ireland. The Committee should appreciate how difficult their task has been.
I can imagine nothing that any Government could do which would be more conducive to uncertainty and unrest in the renowned Civil Service in Belfast and elsewhere than the uncertainty caused by the possibility of an annual change. That is why my amendment seeks to ensure that, if this event comes about, it takes effect for 10 years rather than for one year.
There has been tabled an amendment to my amendment proposing that the period should be for two years instead of 10. I shall listen very carefully to the arguments adduced in favour of that amendment, but I do not think that a period of two years will provide the stability that I feel is needed.
I think I am right in saying that the Secretary of State has not yet accepted an amendment from the Government side of the Committee, but let us suppose that he accepts this amendment, as I hope he will after he has heard the argument. In that 10-year period of stability we could be quietly working towards a more acceptable system of devolved government. By that I mean that instead of having a devolved Assembly we could be working more towards an Assembly based on the local government or county council principle such as exists in England and Wales, and akin to similar institutions in Scotland. A 10-year breathing space would allow the Government to see whether it would be more appropriate for the next transfer to be made to an Assembly along the lines of a county council in England and Wales.
The Secretary of State's acceptance of my simple amendment would not only provide the return of direct rule but, in the decade of direct rule, the Government would have a chance to have a second look at the setting up of the Assembly to see whether it should be run on local authority lines as elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

9 pm

Mr. Body: I put my name to the amendment proposing a five-year period. Does my hon. Friend agree that if one were to vote for the amendment for a 10-year period, direct rule need not necessarily continue for 10 years? Would it not be possible within that period, once some settlement were reached, for the period to be reduced to five years if the House had the will to do so?

Mr. Farr: My hon. Friend is always cogent in such discussions, and I hope that he is successful later in catching your eye, Mr. Dean.
I should not like to put forward tonight the argument that five years is better than 10. Although we have the latitude to discuss 10, five or two years, I think that the 10-year period is best.
One reason why a 10-year period is better than a five or two-year period is that it gives a real chance for the Secretary of State and the Government to rethink the role that a devolved Assembly will play. There is a sizeable body of opinion in the Committee that thinks that the Government are wrong. It is fearful of the effect that the setting up of the type of devolved Assembly that my right hon. Friend seeks under the Bill will have on the unity of the United Kingdom.
We hope and trust that in such a 10-year standstill period, with public opinion turning more to our side than

it is today, my right hon. Friend, or whoever takes his place in the Northern Ireland office—not my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), the Under-Secretary; his chances of succeeding are remote if he continues to persist with the Bill—will be better able to reflect in that 10-year period what the unity of the United Kingdom needs and, perhaps more importantly, what Northern Ireland needs.
A 10-year period will give an opportunity to consider how the role of county councils in England and Wales can be applied to the Assembly in Northern Ireland. The population in Northern Ireland on 30 June 1980 was 1,547,000. Those people will have between 78 and 85 elected Members of the Assembly. That is only slightly different from a county council in England and Wales.
For example, Staffordshire, with a population of 999,900, has 82 councillors. That is somewhere between the 78 and 85 of the new Ulster Assembly. I shall pick one or two out of a whole range of county councils which have between 78 and 85 councillors. They include Bedfordshire, with a population of nearly half a million, Derbyshire with a population of nearly 900,000, Suffolk with a population of 597,000, and West Sussex with a population of 643,000. Those five county councils—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is going rather wide. This is a fairly narrow debate. We are dealing with the period of time, and the hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to that subject. At present, he is going much wider than that.

Mr. Farr: Perhaps I might go a little further, Mr. Dean, and you will then realise that my remarks relate closely to the amendment. I am saying that it is essential to have this 10-year standstill so that a proper period of reflection can take place to see whether the Assembly in Northern Ireland should not be run more on the lines of a county council, or a Scottish council, than as a devolved Assembly as proposed in the Bill. I was seeking to point out that many county councils in England and Wales, with a population of a little less than Northern Ireland, have the same number of county councillors.
The question whether the number of Assembly Members would have to remain between 78 and 85 would be considered during the 10-year period. During the decade that I seek to include in the Bill, I know that representations will be made from Northern Ireland—the point has already been made to me—that there should be more Members of the Assembly than the 78 to 85 that are proposed. As I said earlier, Staffordshire, with a population of almost 1 million, has 82 county councillors, while Northern Ireland, with a population of roughly 1½ million, is to have 78 to 85 Assembly Members. I have been informed that during the 10-year period there would be pressure from many people in Northern Ireland to have the Assembly running on county council lines, and its membership increased from 78 to 85 to over 100. That is not to say that there is any particular ratio, even after local government reorganisation in 1974 in England and Wales, of population to councillors. Before reorganisation, the county council of Rutland, with a population of only 30,000, had 28 councillors.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am finding it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the


amendment. I see that he wishes to draw some analogies, but they must be strictly related to the time factor, which is the subject of the amendment.

Mr. Farr: I was about to say that I regard this 10-year period as essential so that the alternatives can be properly explored. I was touching, probably incorrectly, on an alternative form of Assembly duty, which many of us on these Benches would like to see brought into effect, instead of the Assembly duties which are at present proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Molyneaux: The hon. Gentleman has rightly given a great deal of consideration to what might happen during the 10-year period. Has he taken fully into account the fact that the population in Northern Ireland increases more rapidly than that in Great Britain. Therefore, the ratio of Member to population would change as the years passed. If it were necessary to reactivate the Assembly after seven years and if the 70 per cent. requirement could be cobbled together, would the hon. Gentleman suggest that there should be some mechanism for reviewing the number of Members after that period?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted down that road. I have already ruled that those sorts of argument are well outside the scope of the debate, which is strictly related to the time factor.

Mr. Farr: I have the greatest possible respect for your rulings in all circumstances, Mr. Dean, but it is impossible to talk only about the time factor without endeavouring to place before the Committee what one will do with the gained nine years. I do not think that a year is sufficient. That is why the amendment has been tabled. I am endeavouring to explain to the Committee what will happen in that nine-year period and what I believe should happen.
I hope that a realisation will develop that a form of county council government is particularly suited to Northern Ireland rather than the present form of devolved Assembly. One would then have the opportunity of examining the duties and responsibilities of county councils in England and Wales. Most county councils in England and Wales have the type of duties that should be discharged by an Assembly in Northern Ireland. They are responsible for planning, transportation, museums and art galleries, housing—there is the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland—highways, traffic and parking, road safety, environmental health, animal diseases, the police—that is excluded for Northern Ireland—the fire service, leisure services and the airports.
I should like to see greater use made of that 10-year period so that it can be ascertained whether the form of Government proposed is the right one or whether there is not an alternative which would be more suitable and more satisfactory for the Province.
Another reason why I particularly believe that the 10-year period is appropriate relates to the figure in the Bill of 70 per cent. A 10-year period will give a chance for reflection. Any new Bill which might be introduced after that period could provide for a simple majority rather than for 70 per cent. It is the normal procedure in a democratic Assembly, including our own, that a simple majority

should apply. In democratic countries where there is a written constitution, it is only on constitutional matters that a certain figure above 50 per cent. is required to settle a decision.
In the constitution of Zimbabwe which was drawn up in Westminster there is a requirement that a certain number of votes should approve any measure to amend the constitution. That is an example where more than 50 per cent. is required. During these 10 years it will be appropriate to consider how the Bill can be approved. I paid tribute earlier to the civil servants of Northern Ireland and I referred to the difficulty that they will have in continuing to carry out their duties properly and effectively against a background of possible change from one year's end to another.
9.15 pm
It seems strange that we should be seeking to provide the Assembly proceedings with the requirement of a 70 per cent. majority or 70 per cent. approval. If we pitch the figure as high as that the result might be exasperation, possibly with results that will be regretted. If the requirement is a majority greater than 70 per cent. it will be difficult to get an agreement—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again reverting to debates that we had on clause 2. We are now dealing with the schedule accompanying clause 2. This is a narrow amendment that relates to a certain period. If the order is revoked, that period will run again for one year. The hon. Gentleman is proposing to substitute 10 years. This is a comparatively narrow issue and it is an abuse of the procedures of the House of Commons, and of rulings that I have already given, to revert to the merits of the case, which were discussed during debates on clause 2.

Mr. Farr: Of course, Mr. Dean, I accept your ruling, but I am seeking to emphasise that if the 10-year provision is accepted by my right hon. Friend it will provide the Government with a breathing space in which they can see where they are going in Northern Ireland. I must endeavour briefly to point out in my few remarks the alternative to the deplorable course that is outlined in the Bill, which the Government could pursue to their advantage. As I tried to explain earlier, it is difficult for me merely to say "It should be 10 years" and to deal with the matter on only a numerical basis. I must endeavour to explain to the Committee how the gain of nine years would be utilised and for what purpose it would be utilised. I think that I am right to seek to explain the purpose that I should like to see the nine years put to, and the outcome that I hope will result from having 10 years in which to reflect.
I feel certain that the Government have this Bill wrong. If they are to press on with it and the eventuality to which I am referring comes about, at least we shall have the assured stability of 10 years of direct rule without interruption if the amendment is accepted. That will enable the Government of the day and all those who advise the Government to come to a conclusion on the future course for Northern Ireland. That is why it is essential, even if we touch upon it only briefly, to discuss the options that I should like to see considered by the Government when they come to make up their minds about the future.
My right hon. Friend has made continual references to the way in which he takes advice and to how he will make


up his mind. My point is related more to clause 1(4) (b), which refers to the Secretary of State making up his mind about whether such a proposal commands the support of the majority.
With the 10-year period we could enshrine in an amending Bill, if not in the present one, some guidance to the Secretary of State about how he should make up his mind. He has told us from time to time in Committee that he takes this and that advice. When he is pressed to describe more exactly what guidance he seeks, he tells us that he is informed by representatives of political parties, political leaders, civil servants and so on. It is vital to know how the Secretary of State makes up his mind. It is not enough to rely upon his replies to interventions.
I hope that in a 10-year period there could be laid down some form of guidance by which the Secretary of State should take advice when considering such legislation. I see no reason why his taking advice should be secret. I am sure that hon. Members, especially those from Northern Ireland, have determined views about whom he should and should not go to for advice. The utilisation of a 10-year period is vital to the present Bill and any subsequent legislation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I had not intended to do so. I have listened carefully to the argument that he has clearly set out. However, amendment No. 103 would not preclude either full or partial devolution taking place at any time in the 10-year period. It would simply not require an annual review of direct rule. It simply substitutes renewal every 10, or perhaps two, years. As drafted it could not preclude either full or partial devolution during the 10-year period.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware of that. I am trying to secure the definite stability of 10 years' direct rule. Much could happen in 10 years. The Secretary of State could lay before the House some guideline about how he forms his opinion. We could debate that. The Bill takes its precedent from previous Northern Ireland legislation. As drafted, the Bill is lax. It allows the Secretary of State to seek an opinion and take the temperature. The House should guide him more on how he takes the temperature. The House should guide him about to whom he goes For advice. We should also guide him about whom he should not go to for advice.
I therefore hope that in the 10-year period that improvement will be made to the present system. It will provide not merely a period of stability of direct rule but a time for reflection on whether this form of devolved Government is correct, or whether something more akin to that of the local authorities of England and Wales, particularly the county councils, would be preferable. It will also enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or his successor to ascertain whether there is a fairer and better way to be approved by the House of Commons, and to state clearly how he could, in an approved manner, ascertain the views of the population in Northern Ireland.
We must bear in mind that at present my right hon. Friend has considerable powers to use his discretion. I do not believe for one moment that he would misuse those powers. I have every confidence in him. Nevertheless, the matter is of such critical importance that the Committee should know exactly whom he is being advised to see and to consult in Northern Ireland. Indeed, does he take

opinions outside Northern Ireland? Is he forbidden to take opinions, say, from Dublin? I do not know. There may be no reason why he should not do so. Nevertheless, in matters of such critical importance the guidelines should be fully discussed and approved by the House.
I hope that those matters can be ironed out during the 10-year standstill period of direct rule.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Minister is quite right that, even if the amendment were accepted, direct rule could be ended and some kind of devolution introduced, literally at the stroke of a pen? Does he also agree, however, that the same is true of the present annual system of renewal? Each time we provide that it is only for one year and say that in the interval we may invent something else and come back to the House for authorisation. But no one in his heart of hearts really believes that. At the end of June each year we go through something of a charade when we say that we are renewing the powers for a further year but that it is for the last time and perhaps, even before the 12 months are up, there will be something new. As the hon. Gentleman will know from my amendment, many of us believe that 10 years is too long. Nevertheless, we agree that there should be a target time in order to provide a certain stability. People would then be spared the agony and uncertainty of feeling that there is a time hurdle and that they must do something before the next renewal.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that most helpful intervention. As he said, we have this agony every year with the annual debate in the House of Commons. Recently, it has been more of a formality. Nevertheless, the troubles of Northern Ireland are displayed in public and the Secretary of State's reasons for renewal are portrayed and debated every year.
If that annual event were replaced by a 10-yearly system, there would be greater stability. We are all well aware of what happened in 1972. If the then Government of the United Kingdom had made it clear that direct rule was to remain effective for 10 years and that they were bound to that by Act of Parliament, I believe that there would not have been half the strife, "aggro", mischief-making, or the suffering and discomfort that so many thousands of innocent people and so many gallant police and Service men in Northern Ireland have encountered in the succeeding 10 years.
If the Committee accepts this amendment, it will give the Bill some stability, and a much needed element of stability for the Province.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish to speak to amendment (a) to amendment No. 103. It proposes, in line 1, to leave out 'ten' and insert 'two'.
In catching your eye at this stage, Mr. Dean, I believe that I am not depriving any hon. Member of the opportunity to make the speech that he would in any case be making on the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) since this is essentially the same point. As you have several times reminded the Committee, Mr. Dean, we are debating the length of time between which it is necessary for the interim period to be renewed under the 1974 Act.
The schedule is more important than it might appear. It is, I suppose, in the last resort machinery attached to


clause 2. Nevertheless, it raises a number of important issues. It provides for the movement out of and into direct rule and on the making and revocation of respective orders; namely, for full devolution and for rolling devolution. Although we shall be examining that presently, it so happens that revocation under rolling devolution appears to have escaped the eagle eye of the right hon. Gentleman's draftsmen, but we shall shortly be moving on to put that right.
There are a number of matters involved in the schedule on which it would be proper to ask questions. I hope that we shall have an opportunity of doing so when we reach the debate on schedule 1 stand part, since the amendments with which we are now dealing relate only to specific aspects of the schedule. A number of important aspects are not covered by the amendment.
I now turn to the length of time for which the interim period ought to endure without having to be renewed. It is true—and this was the burden of the intervention by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) in the speech of the the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr)—that if we agree to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Harborough, or the lesser amendment that my hon. Friends and I consider preferable, we should not in all circumstances be varying the renewal period under the 1974 Act. I do not think that it is in our power to do that within the scope of the Bill. Although the Bill gives us carte blanche to amend the 1973 constitution, it so happens that, ironically, it does not provide the same unlimited facility for amending the 1974 Act dealing with direct rule.
Nevertheless, we are here contemplating the circumstances of relapse to direct rule after full or partial devolution. We therefore have an opportunity—a legitimate opportunity—to look at the time of the periodicity of renewal of direct rule.
The hon. Member for Harborough has done the Committee a service in discussing the length of the period. He was right to place this finger on the factor of stability. I do not believe that what he said on that head was seriously affected by the very correct intervention by the hon. Member for Oxford because it is that year, that annual interval, in the 1974 Act that stamps direct rule with its character and to which our attention has been directed by the amendment.
When one recalls the circumstances of 1974 when the Act was passed, it is intelligible that a one-year period for renewal was proposed and accepted. After all, the predictions of those who said that the 1973 Act would break down had been fulfilled. They were fulfilled, not accidentally or as a result of some unforeseen eruption into the politics of Northern Ireland, but because of the inherent contradictions of the 1973 Act. The real authors and only begetters of the 1973 Act—I do not mean the spokesman—were pretty confident that given a little time they would again have the show on the road. Therefore, when they were assisting the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to draft the 1974 Act, it would have been too much to expect them to contemplate a period any longer than the one year.
Time has gone on, and every year since then the 1974 Act, which introduced direct rule, punctually and annually—it is one of the summer fixtures—has been

renewed. It is time to ask—that is what the Minister of State has done—whether that interval any longer fits the circumstances.

Mr. Budgen: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is not with us today. Perhaps he will take his place later and we shall hear his words, but it is a matter of interest that he has not spoken in these debates.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his correction. I think that the battle of Bosworth Field was fought in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr)—

Mr. Farr: indicated dissent.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It was not. That is one error piled upon another, one Pelion piled upon another Ossa of mistake. Somehow, I do not know why, I tend to associate the hon. Member for Harborough with that disastrous effect of English history, when the man whom some regard as the last English gentleman was betrayed by a Stanley—never trust a Stanley—and was deprived of his crown and of his life. However, I apologise for digressing, and I am sorry that I got the constituency wrong.
Neither I, my hon. Friends nor any Northern Ireland representative regards direct rule—to which we would automatically relapse if there were a revocation order as provided for in this part of the schedule—as a satisfactory form of government. For one thing, it is incompatible with local government as it is known in the rest of the United Kingdom. For another, it is incompatible with legislation as we understand it in this House. Those are two monstrosities that we renew annually for Northern Ireland when we renew the interim period under the 1974 Act.
None the less, if the truth were told—we do not always tell it—and the Secretary of State were looking for a form of government likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community, I grieve to have to say, although I must do so in candour, that it would be direct rule. Of all the violent insurrections and protests that have taken place in Northern Ireland in the past eight to 10 years, none has been against direct rule. The opinion polls, that we all agree to disbelieve and also to quote, genuinely show that to be so. Acquiescence may not be enthusiasm but that is the attitude of almost the whole population of Northern Ireland towards direct rule. I say that because, in proposing a longer period than the present period for renewal—although admittedly a period that is only one-fifth of the length of that proposed by the hon. Member for Harborough—I might be misunderstood to be singing the praises of direct rule and of desiring, if not its diuturnity, at any rate its long continuance without the necessity of debate and renewal.
That is not so at all but during the past eight years, Northern Ireland Members have each year approached the time of the extension of the interim period with the hope of an amelioration of direct rule. They have welcomed the annual basis of renewal on the grounds that it will shortly give an opportunity for minor improvements in home rule—for example, a minor extension of the powers of the district councils to be made by the Government. It has also provided us with an opportunity for a review of the conditions in the Province, at least annually, though we have other opportunities for that. Sometimes it has provided us with a sort of argument to urge upon the


Ministers of the Northern Ireland Office that they had better get on with those improvements and reforms that we believe are necessary and desirable.
I must confess, however, that as the years have passed the annual renewal has become more and more perfunctory. It has produced less and less hope on our part that it might be accompanied by a promise of gradual but real reform. Instead of looking forward to annual, if only small, steps towards more acceptable conditions—conditions more akin to those enjoyed in the rest of the United Kingdom, even under the 1974 Act—we have instead been entertained with threats, warnings, allegations, and fantasies of some new dispensation that would presently be sprung upon us and would render all this unnecessary.
I could cite predecessors of the Under-Secretary of State the hon Member for Oxford who over and over again have assured us that it is not necessary to worry about this or that because, before a few months are out, there will be devolved government in the Province. That brings me back to the essential point made by the hon. Member for Harborough. It is wholly unacceptable that after eight years the application of the system of government in the rest of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland should be at 12 months' purchase at maximum.
It is a standing invitation to anyone who supposes with evil intent that the Government of the United Kingdom are not serious about the union. It is a standing invitation to all and sundry in Northern Ireland to regard themselves as living in a sort of limbo in an annual interim position that is not compatible with the principles on which the rest of the United Kingdom is governed but that has been renewed punctually year by year.
9.45 pm
One could not devise a prescription more apt to create uncertainty and to undermine confidence than an attempt to govern part of the United Kingdom under a system of direct rule renewable annually. It would be far better, except that for some years ahead the position would be the same, to give people a chance to escape from the constant necessity of being engaged in constitutional debate and controversy. Some people may complain that the inhabitants and representatives of Northern Ireland are always talking about the constitution. That is no wonder, since they know that the topic will automatically be raised and that the rug will be pulled from under them at least every 12 months.

Mr. Farr: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State always portrays the Bill as a great opportunity to restore business confidence in Northern Ireland. Would not business confidence be far more readily restored by the certainty of at least 10 years of direct rule and a form of government that is assured for the reasonable future?

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friends and I decided that 10 years was too long, despite the argument of the hon. Member for Harborough, to leave the interim period undebated and to leave direct rule as an accomplished continuing fact. It would be inconsistent with our objections of principle to direct rule to accept that it could continue without further parliamentary action for 10 years. Therefore, we have tried to amend the period.
The hon. Member for Harborough and the Committee may ask "Why two years?" The argument could be put forward—no doubt the hon. Member for Holland with

Boston (Mr. Body) will deploy it—for a longer period of tenure than two years. However, in the context of the Bill it is necessary to break the annual habit. At least let us break out of what we have lived with for eight years—the annuality of direct rule.
We should be sorry to have to reconcile ourselves—I judge that the hon. Member for Harborough might also be sorry—to the notion that there would be no major improvement in the local government of the Province or in the manner for which the Province is legislated for many years ahead. We should be sorry to renounce the opportunity of telling those at the Northern Ireland Office that, if they must renew direct rule, at least before or at the same time they should announce certain improvements.

Mr. Amery: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that acceptance of this amendment would not commit the House or the Government to 10 years of unchanged rule? Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said that it would not prevent devolution, equally it would not prevent advances in local government or towards integration. The difference in years between my hon. Friend's amendment and the amendment to it is not necessarily contradictory.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman is right, as the Under-Secretary confirmed, in saying that as this schedule is drawn and constructed, having revoked full devolution, it would be possible at any time to revert to full devolution. However, we are looking at the practicalities and the probabilities rather than at the theory. The practicability and the probability is that if one made an attempt at full devolution and the attempt had to be called off, as it had to be in 1973–74, the Minister would not make, any more than he has made since 1974, except after a long interval, a new attempt. Therefore, we are entitled to take into account the central argument of the hon. Member for Harborough about achieving a degree of stability in the constitutional arrangements in the Province.

Mr. Porter: The fact that we have had annual reviews of direct rule since that time would, in my view, give it the degree of stability for which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is asking. The rubber stamping over the past few years gives it that stability.
I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great interest, but not with my normal silent applause. I fail to understand the logic. The Government believe, mistakenly in my view, that the Bill will give a new sort of Government to the Province. That has not been prevented by the fact that we have had annual reviews of direct rule. If the Government are right, which is highly unlikely, in believing that they will have some part of devolution, what is wrong with the proposal that, if we have partial devolution, we should look at it in each succeeding year? That seems to me eminently sensible. I see no purpose in two years. I can understand, but not accept, what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough says about 10 years, but I see no purpose in two years.

Mr. Powell: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in supposing that these provisions would provide us with an annual look at devolution or partial devolution. On the contrary, this period gives us another look at direct rule at annual intervals.
My hon. Friends and I feel that we should be breaking out of that annual habit, and should take the opportunity


afforded by the schedule for doing so. On the other hand, we do not feel that it is wise to go as far as to assume, or even imply, that we should gladly accept a decade of direct rule. We should not. We want to establish that at any rate this interim period is something less ephemeral than is implied by the automatic annual renewal, which was no doubt not anticipated in 1974–75 but which has been our experience.
It is an irony of the schedule that the whole schedule, and certainly the provisions with which we are dealing, is built upon the doubt of the Secretary of State about whether his devolution will work. We are talking about the measures that would follow upon the revocation of the order, which many, to judge by earlier debates, thought unlikely ever to be made.
I am sure that it was right—and we are grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough in this respect—that the automatic annual renewal of direct rule should be challenged, and challenged in the context of the Bill. I am afraid that my hon. Friends and I will not be able to follow the hon. Member into the Lobby in support of the amendment, but I hope that we shall have the support of the Committee in breaking the habit of annuality with the implication of enduring uncertainty that inevitably it carries with it.

Mr. Julian Amery: Perhaps, Mr. Dean, before the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) catches your eye again the hands of the clock will have moved beyond midnight, to the point when we reach his 70th birthday. I have watched his performance in this debate and many others and heard his speech tonight and I have no doubt that he will arrive at four score years with just as much vitality as we see tonight. We shall continue to enjoy the ferocity of his logic, enlightened as it is by those shafts of humour. We had a charming one tonight about Bosworth and Bosworth Field that collectors of Powellisms treasure just as much as collectors of "RAB"-isms. I must not stray from the amendment. [Interruption.] I should take offence if the Leader of the House were to think that even that mild compliment were wrong. My right hon. Friend was in a sedentary position when he uttered his remark and perhaps Hansard will not have heard what he said.
The Secretary of State has made a bald point of the importance of stability for the future of the Province. It is my view, and that of many of my hon. Friends, that the Bill is not conducive to stability and that the Assembly—if it comes into being—will be a source of instability. That is not his view and the Secretary of State is entitled to his opinion just as we are to ours. He must take the credit for thinking that he may be wrong. I rather have the feeling that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary intervened during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that perhaps he had not read—or if he had read had not really taken to heart—The Times leading article today. Although that article appeared in many ways to be friendly to the Bill there was a sharp sting in the tail. It said that the Bill might not produce the results that the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary hope to see. If that were to be the case there would be no choice except to proceed in some other way, either by the continuance of direct rule or by the integration process that some of us favour.
It is important to remember when criticising direct rule—I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South and with most of my hon. Friends that we do not like direct rule—that a large proportion of the people of the Province consulted in public opinion polls have put direct rule and its continuation as their second choice. We must pay attention to that. It is important not to rule out direct rule even if we do not think it is perfect.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can claim that he has tried to achieve a different solution. He has tried to achieve devolved government even though all the leaders of the political parties in the Province and even some of the Government's best friends in the House think that it is wrong. It is all very well for him to insist on his formula although it appears to fly in the face of almost every authority interested in the subject as well as in the face of the traditions of the Conservative and Unionist Party. It would, however, be worse to refuse the spirit of the two amendments.
I ask the Secretary of State to think seriously about accepting the spirit of the amendments and making a concession. I ask him to consider the five-year compromise, which falls between the proposed two-year and 10-year proposals. Earlier my right hon. Friend tried to drive a wedge between—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 27.

Division No. 208]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell,Stephen


Alison, RtHon Michael
Dover,Denshore


Alton,David
Dunn, James A.


Arnold,Tom
Dunn,Robert(Dartford)


Aspinwall,Jack
Eggar,Tim


Atkins, RtHon H.(S'thorne)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Beith, A.J.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon,W.(Buckingham)
Goodlad,Alastair


Berry, Hon Anthony
Greenway, Harry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, B.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)


Boscawen,HonRobert
Grimond,Rt Hon J.


Bowden,Andrew
Gummer,JohnSelwyn


Boyson,DrRhodes
Hamilton, Hon A.


Braine,SirBernard
Hampson,Dr Keith


Bright,Graham
Hawksley,Warren


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayhoe Barney


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Henderson,Barry


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)


Butcher,John
Hooson,Tom


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Horam,John


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Howells,Geraint


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cartwright,John
Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Chapman,Sydney
Jopling,Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kaberry,Sir Donald


Cockeram,Eric
Lang, lan


Colvin,Michael
Latham,Michael


Cope,John
Lawrence, Ivan


Crawshaw,Richard
Lee, John






Lennox-Boyd,HonMark
Royle, SirAnthony


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sainsbury,HonTimothy


Lloyd, lan (Havant&amp;W'loo)
Sandelson,Neville


Loveridge,john
Scott,Nicholas


Lyell,Nicholas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)
Shaw, SirMichael (Scarb')


McNally,Thomas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Marland,Paul
Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)


Marlow,Antony
Silvester, Fred


Mates,Michael
Sims, Roger


Mather,Carol
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mawby, Ray
Speed, Keith


Mawhinney.DrBrian
Spence,John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sproat,lain


Mayhew, Patrick
Squire,Robin


Mellor,David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Meyer, SirAnthony
Stevens, Martin


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Stewart, lan (Hitchin)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)


Moate,Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro,SirHector
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Thornton,Malcolm


Morgan, Geraint
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Needham, Richard
Trippier, David


Newton,Tony
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Onslow,Cranley
Vaughan, DrGerard


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Viggers,Peter


Parris, Matthew
Waddington,David


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wainwright,R.(Colne v)


Pattie,Qeoffrey
Wakeham,John


Penhaligon, David
Waller, Gary


Percival,Sir lan
Warren,Kenneth


Prior, RtHon James
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone,Tim
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Renton,Tim
Wickenden,Keith


Rhodes James, Robert
Wolfson,Mark


Rhys Williams, SirBrandon
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Ridley,HonNicholas




Ridsdale,SirJulian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Roper,John
Mr. Donald Thompson


Rossi, Hugh





NOES


Amery, RtHon Julian
Molyneaux,James


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Morris, M.(N'hamptonS)


Blackburn,John
Paisley, Rev lan


Body, Richard
Powell, Rt Hon J.E.(SDown)


Brown, Michal(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Budgen,Nick
Robinson, P. (BelfastE)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner,Dennis


Dunlop,John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Farr,John
Stanbrook,lvor


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Walker, B.(Perth)


Gardiner,George(Reigate)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gorst,John



Kilfedder,JamesA.
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. William Ross and


McCusker,H.
Mr. Christopher Murphy.


McQuade,john

Question accordingly agreed to

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Would it not be reasonable to suggest that those who have just voted to end our proceedings at Ten o'clock should now go home? We might then make some progress with the Bill.

The Second Deputy Chairman: As an experienced parliamentarian, the hon. Gentleman knows well that the Chair has quite enough on its hands without suggesting whether right hon. and hon. Members should go home.

Mr. Amery: I was in the process of developing an argument, and I had sought to explain to the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had laid great emphasis on the need for stability. I had explained that I thought that the Bill would not achieve that but that I well understood that he believed he was making a contribution towards it. I had begged him to consider that he might be wrong, in which case he should develop a fallback position.
I had suggested that although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had read the leading article in The Times, he had not fully understood it. Though ostensibly favourable to the Bill, it had a pretty sharp sting in the tail. It had forecast that the Bill was likely to fail to achieve its objective, in which case there would not be much alternative to direct rule, perhaps indefinitely, or to moving towards integration.
I reminded the Committee that whatever view hon. Members may take of direct rule—many who are opposed to the Bill are not in favour of indefinite direct rule and would like to see local government and the full integration of the Province with the United Kingdom—public opinion polls suggested that a large number of operations in the Province regarded the continuation of direct rule as second-best. Perhaps my right hon. Friend should take into account that they cannot agree on the best and be prepared to make a concession, if not to the main amendment, if not to the second amendment, perhaps to the compromise that could be represented by the five-year period.
There are good reasons for saying that. In an earlier debate my right hon. Friend sought to expose what he saw as a contradiction between the views of the right hon. Member for Down, South and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). One wanted a return to Stormont and the other wanted integration. What he perhaps concealed from the Committee—although I am sure that he is sophisticated enough to have understood it—is that the only reason why Stormont worked at all was that it made up its own mind to act as a rubber stamp for what was decided by Parliament. Had it done otherwise, the Stormont experiment would have broken down long before it did.
I am by no means convinced that my right hon. Friend's Assembly will, if it comes into being at all, be a rubber stamp for what is decided in the House and in this Parliament. It may never come into being, but if it does it may decline to follow Westminster's lead. If it does, we shall be in considerable difficulty. Indeed, the Bill


attempts to make some provision for a conflict between the two. If that should be the case, we need a fall-back position.
The first inevitable fall-back position is a continuance of direct rule. My right hon. Friend has always said—and he said it again this evening in an intervention—that devolution is not obligatory. If devolution is not obligatory, what will happen if the opportunity is not taken up? It means that direct rule will continue until something else takes its place—either another experiment in devolution, or integration.
Therefore, this is an occasion when my right hon. Friend could make a concession, if not to the detail of the two amendments, at any rate to the spirit in which they have been tabled. I beg him to realise that the Committee is very uneasy about the Bill—much more uneasy than perhaps the voting figures show. Some concession would not be inappropriate. I should not want my right hon. Friend to be regarded as a hard man who never made concessions, or as a man who did not have the milk of human kindness in his veins. On the contrary, we should like, on this occasion—perhaps on this amendment—a spirit of concession and an attempt to reach a consensus between those who are for the Bill and those who are against it.

Mr. John Patten: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I examine in some detail these two interesting amendments which have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who, unusually for him, is not in his place. He has been with us almost continuously during our proceedings, and he greatly adds to their value.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough suggested that the period for which direct rule should run, before any review of that period of direct rule and any renewal should take place, should be 10 years. The right hon. Member for Down, South and his two hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and Londonderry (Mr. Ross) felt that the period should be allowed to run for two years before any review and possible renewal of direct rule should take place.
The Committee will be aware that the Northern Ireland Act 1974 provides that the interim period of direct rule shall be one year, and one year only, subject of course to statutory renewal by both Houses of Parliament. In the past, these annual debates have provided useful and important opportunities for us in this Chamber to express an opinion on the way in which the government of the Province is conducted. Something that unites us across the Floor of this not always united Committee is a desire for the better government of Northern Ireland. It is therefore useful for the House of Commons to have the opportunity to scrutinise the way in which direct rule works.
A second important point is that the very fact that direct rule has to be reviewed each year demonstrates to the people of the Province the conviction of successive United Kingdom Governments—Labour Governments as much as Conservative Governments—that direct rule is only temporary, and should be temporary only until a more acceptable form of government is found which could return devolved powers to Northern Ireland.
I have three main points to put. First, should it become necessary under clause 5 to revoke a devolution order—the unhappy day when, if full devolution had taken place, this House had to consider revoking the full devolution order and bringing about the resumption of direct rule—at some unspecified time in the future—it would be some years in the future—there would be a no less necessary obligation on the House to scrutinise and review direct rule at annual periods. That is our strong feeling and conviction.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister said a moment ago that he thought that this part would not be needed for some years. As he has formed an opinion about how long it would take for full devolution to break down, has he also formed an opinion about how long it would take to get it set up?

Mr. Patten: My predictions about how long it might take for full devolution to break down, should that unhappy event ever happen, follow my own convictions. It would be some little time before partial or full devolution could occur because of the necessary accommodations for which the Bill makes provision having to be brought about. We are in the area of speculation here. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that as much as I do.
In the event of the breakdown of a full devolution order, it would remain right for the continuation of direct rule to

be debated on at least an annual basis. That debate would give an opportunity to Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, who have other views on how the Province should be governed, to air their views. It would also give all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen the chance to review the workings of direct rule. Yet, if either of the amendments were successful, renewal debates would take place much less frequently.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough that he would wish such debates at the maximum to take place once every 10 years, although he suggested that perhaps five years might in the end be a more suitable period. On the other hand, the right hon. Member for Down, South suggested that two years would be a more suitable period. I was interested to see that there was not wholehearted agreement between them as to their mutual levels of support. My point is fundamental to the Government's attitude.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is it the Minister's intention to permit those who have been waiting to be called to intervene? We could answer his point about the difference between the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Harborough and our amendment to it.

Mr. Patten: I am extremely happy to have an explanation on that point from the hon. Gentleman if he feels that it would be helpful.

Mr. Molyneaux: I do not believe that a mere intervention would fill the bill. I would say at this interim stage—I know my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is eager to contribute—that our position has been fully explained by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who said clearly—[Interruption.] I would interpret the arrival of the Patronage Secretary as a friendly call to see how we are getting on and whether we need any encouragement. I do not believe that it in any way indicates that we are about to be muzzled.
We feel that 10 years would be too long and we can give a variety of reasons for taking that view. However, there is a strong case for breaking out of the routine of the annual renewal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South used the term "breaking out". We would favour two years, but we are prepared to be flexible and accept an additional one year or two years. Our principle is to break away from the farce of the annual renewal.

Mr. Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clear exposition of the reasoning of the right hon. Member for Down, South behind his injunction to us all to break the habit of the annual renewal of direct rule. I am sure that the Committee is grateful to him.

Mr. Farr: My hon. Friend said that one of the advantages of the present system is that the House of Commons has an opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland affairs regularly. There is no reason why Northern Ireland affairs should not be discussed as regularly as Scottish and Welsh affairs are at present. If we broke away from the present annual system and had a 10-year system, as I suggested, it would possibly save the House of Commons from discussing the subject of Northern Ireland annually when from time to time it might be inconvenient to do so.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has made a most interesting intervention. I find it hard to understand how


right hon. and hon. Members, especially my right hon. and hon. Friends who wish to safeguard Parliament's rights in regard to Northern Ireland—I believe that I am right in counting my hon. Friend among their number—should wish to reduce the opportunity that Parliament has regularly to scrutinise the Province's affairs. Surely they should be thoroughly in favour of regular scrutiny.

Mr. Gorst: We would like Northern Ireland laws to be the same as those for Great Britain. If that happens, it will not be necessary to go through the annual procedure. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made this very point.

Mr. Patten: I am trying to address the Committee's attention firmly to the period for renewal. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go down the route towards which he is luring me. There are other important considerations. The most important is that the amendment and the amendment to it seek to make clear to varying degrees the fact that, should a future devolved Administration fail, the people of Northern Ireland will be subject to a further and a lengthier period of direct rule. That would appear to be shutting the door on political progress. I hope that no one will read anything untoward into that phrase.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose—

Mr. Patten: I shall develop my argument.
It would appear to be shutting the door on any political progress in the Province for a longer period. That could be damaging because, the longer the interim period of direct rule lasts without being reviewed by Parliament, the more damaging it will be.
As we made clear in the recent White Paper, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made abundantly clear on Second Reading, the Government do not believe that the current arrangements for direct rule provide a long-term answer to the problems of Northern Ireland, and neither do we believe that they are conducive to political progress. Most important of all, we do not believe that they are conducive to inducing greater stability in the Province. It must follow from that that we do not believe that any proposals that tend to make direct rule more permanent, or seem more permanent, will help the Province's stability, whether we extend the interim period for two years, five years, 10 years or whatever.

Mr. Michael Brown: It is obvious that I would rather deal in a speech with the important point that my hon. Friend is making, but I have the feeling in my heart that I shall not catch your eye on this point, Mr. Dean.
Is my hon. Friend saying that, in the event of direct rule being re-established because of the revocation order, he is opposed to the amendments on the grounds that they would prevent further consideration of some new type of political initiative to deal with the problem then posed by the revocation? Would he care to speculate about what new form of political initiative he regards as emerging from the right of the House to debate orders annually, as they would normally come, under the 1974 legislation?
I listened to my hon. Friend's words closely. He said that if either of the amendments were accepted we would be shutting the door to further political progress. Let us suppose that full devolution under the Bill has failed and

revocation measures have been effected but my hon. Friend wants to reserve the Government's position for some form of future political progress, notwithstanding the failure of that progress under the terms of the Bill. Will he speculate as to the Government's thinking in terms of the political initiative that he mentioned—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the Minister will resist the temptation to speculate on subjects that are well beyond the fairly narrow confines of these amendments.

Mr. Patten: Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Dean. Perhaps, while accepting your ruling, I may refer to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who indulged in futurology. He speculated on what might come next. The suggestions made by my right hon. Friend might be part of a range of options that might be dealt with at some stage in the future.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Patten: Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. I have given way a great deal.

Mr. Gorst: rose—

Mr. Patten: I have been listening carefully to the siren voices behind me.

Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Perhaps you will assist us on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has rightly resumed his seat because the Minister will not give way. Once more we can see the Chief Whip poised on the edge of his seat, looking exactly as we have grown accustomed to him looking. It seems that we have no way of having this point cleared up. I imagine that there will be no more speeches. Is it possible for us to have just one more short speech so that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West can make his speech before the Chief Whip has his way?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I cannot anticipate hypothetical questions. Nor can I decide whether the Minister should give way.

Mr. Patten: I greatly regret that we are unable to accept the amendment of the right hon. Member for Down, South and his two hon. Friends.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Patten: Much as I should like to offer something by way of a birthday gift to the right hon. Gentleman, as was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion—

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Patten: —the Government do not wish to break the annual habit and go to the two-yearly cycle that he suggests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough was good enough to say in his interesting and lucid speech that he realised that amendment No. 103, which stands in his name, would not bring about what he wished it to achieve. In the light of that, perhaps he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

The Parlimentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michel Joping): The Parlimentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michel Joping)rose in his place claimed to Move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 147 Noes 27.

Division No. 209]
[10. 40 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Lloyd, Ian (Havant&amp;W'loo)


Alison, RtHon Michael
Loveridge,John


Alton,David
Lyell,Nicholas


Arnold,Tom
Lyons, Edward(Bradf'dW)


Atkins, RtHon H.(S'thorne)
McNally,Thomas


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Marland,Paul


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Marlow,Antony


Beith, A. J.
Mates, Michael


Benyon, W.(Buckingham)
Mather,Carol


Berry, HonAnthony
Mawhinney,DrBrian


Best, Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Biffen, RtHon John
Mayhew, Patrick


Blackburn,John
Mellor, David


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Meyer, SirAnthony


Boscawen,HonRobert
Mills,lain(Meriden)


Bowden,Andrew
Mitchell,David (Basingstoke)


Boyson,DrRhodes
Moate,Roger


Braine,SirBernard
Monro,SirHector


Bright,Graham
Montgomery, Fergus


Brooke, Hon Peter
Morgan,Geraint


Brotherton,Michael
Needham,Richard


Bruce-Gardyne,John.
Newton, Tony


Bryan, SirPaul
Onslow,Cranley


Butcher,john
Page, Richard (SWHerts)


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Parris, Matthew


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Patten,John (Oxford)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Carlisle, RtHon M. (R'c'n)
Penhaligon,David


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Percival,Sirlan


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Prior, Rt Hon James


Chapman,Sydney
Rathbone,Tim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Renton,Tim


Cockeram,Eric
Rhodes James, Robert


CoIvin,Michael
Rhys Williams, SirBrandon


Cope,John
Ridley,HonNicholas


Crawshaw, Richard
Ridsdale,SirJulian


Dorrell,Stephen
Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)


Dover,Denshore
Roper,John


Dunn, James A.
Rossi, Hugh


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Royle, SirAnthony


Eggar,Tim
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Sainsbury,HonTimothy


Fowler, RtHon Norman
Scott,Nicholas


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Shaw, SirGiles (Pudsey)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Goodlad,Alastair
Shelton,William(Streatham)


Qreenway, Harry
Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm 'ds)
Silvester, Fred


Griffiths, PeterPortsm'thN)
Sims, Roger


Grimond, RtHonJ.
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Speed, Keith


Hamilton, Hon A.
Sproat,lain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Squire,Robin


Hawksley, Warren
Steel, RtHon David


Hayhoe, Barney
Stevens, Martin


Henderson, Barry
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Holland,Philip(Carlton)
Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)


Hooson,Tom
Temple-Morris,Peter


Horam,John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson,Donald


Howells,Geraint
Thornton,Malcolm


Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)
Townsend.CyrllD,(B'heath)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Trippier,David


Jenkin, RtHon Patrick
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Jopling,RtHonMichael
Vaughan,DrGerard


Kershaw,SirAnthony
Waddington, David


Latham, Michael
Wainwright,R.(ColneV)


Lennox-Boyd,HonMark
Wakeham,John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Waller, Gary


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Warren,Kenneth





Wells, Bowen




Wells,John(Maidstone)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wickenden, Keith
Mr.David Hunt and


Wolfson,Mark
Mr.Ian Lang.


Young,SirGeorge(Acton)





NOES


Amery, RtHonJulian
Molyneaux,James


Biggs-Davlson,SirJohn
Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)


Body, Richard
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brown, Michael(BriggampSc'n)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Budgen,Nick
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner,Dennis


Dunlop,John
Smyth, Rev. W. M.(Belfast S)


Farr,John
Stanbrook.lvor


Fraser, RtHon Sir Hugh
Walker, B. (Perth)


Gardiner,George(Reigate)
Winterton,Nicholas


Gorst,John



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Christopher Murphy and


McCusker,H.
Mr. William Ross.


McQuade,John

Question according agreed to.

Question accordingly, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 36, Noes 132.

Division No. 210]
[10.55pm


AYES


Alton,David
McCusker, H.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
McNally,Thomas


Beith, A. J.
Molyneaux,James


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Morgan,Geraint


Body, Richard
Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Penhaligon, David


Budgen,Nick
Powell, RtHonJ.E.(SDown)


Cranborne,Viscount
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crawshaw, Richard
Roper,John


Dunlop,John
Skinner,Dennis


Dunn, James A.
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Stanbrook.lvor


Gardiner,George(Reigate)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Gorst,John
WainWright,R.(ColneV)


Grimond, RtHonJ.
Walker, B. (Perth)


Horam,John
Winterton, Nicholas


Howells,Geraint



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Christopher Murphy and


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)
Mr. William Ross




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Chapman,Sydney


Alison, RtHon Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Arnold,Tom
Cockeram,Eric


Atkins, RtHon H.(S'thorne)
Colvin,Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cope,John


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Dorrell,Stephen


Benyon,W.(Buckingham)
Dover,Denshore


Berry, HonAnthony
Dunn,Robert(Dartford)


Best, Keith
Eggar,Tim


Biffen, RtHonJohn
Farr,John


Blackburn,John
Fowler, RtHon Norman


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Gardner, Edward (SFylde)


Boscawen,HonRobert
Garel-Jones,Tristan


Bowden,Andrew
Goodlad,Alastair


Boyson,Dr Rhodes
Greenway, Harry


Braine,SirBernard
Griffiths, B.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)


Bright,Graham
Griffiths, PeterPortsm'thN)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawksley,Warren


Butcher,John
Hayhoe, Barney


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Henderson,Barry


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, RtHonM.(R'c'n)
Holland,Philip(Carlton)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hooson,Tom


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey






Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ridsdale,SirJulian


Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Hurd,Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rossi, Hugh


Jopling,RtHon Michael
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Kershaw,SirAnthony
Sainsbury,HonTimothy


Lamont,Norman
Scott,Nicholas


Latham,Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd,HonMark
Shaw,Michael(Scarboroug)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shelton,William(Streatham)


Lewis,Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)


Loveridge,John
Silvester,Fred


Lyell,Nicholas
Sims, Roger


McQuade,John
Smith,Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marland,Paul
Speed, Keith


Mates,Michael
Speller,Tony


Mather,Carol
Sproat,lain


Mawhinney,DrBrian
Squire,Robin


Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin
Stevens,Martin


Mayhew,Patrick
StradlingThomas,J.


Mellor,David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris,Peter


Mills,.lain(Meriden)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson,Donald


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thornton,Malcolm


Moate, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Monro,SirHector
Trippier,David


Montgomery,Fergus
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Needham, Richard
Vaughan,DrGerard


Newton,Tony
Waddington, David


Onslow,Cranley
Wakeham,John


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Waller, Gary


Paisley, Rev Ian
Warren,Kenneth


Parris,Matthew
Wells,Bowen


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wells,John (Maidsone)


Pattie,Geoffrey
Wickenden, Keith


Percival,Sirlan
Wolfson,Mark


Prior, Rt Hon James
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


Renton,Tim



Rhodes James, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


RhysWilliams,SirBrandon
Mr. Selwyn Gummer and


Ridley,HonNicholas
Mr. Ian Lang.

Question accordingly negative.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 23, Noes 145.

Division No. 211]
[11.10 pm


AYES


Amery, RtHon Julian
Moate, Roger


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Molyneaux,James


Body,Richard
Morgan, Geraint


Budgen,Nick
Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)


Cranborne,Viscount
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Cryer,Bob
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dunlop,John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Farr,John
Walker, B. (Perth)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Winterton,Nicholas


Gardiner,George(Reigate)



Gorst,John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lawrence,lvan
Mr. Christopher Murphy and


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. William Ross.


McCusker,H.





NOES


Alexander,Richard
Boscawen,HonRobert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden,Andrew


Alton,David
Boyson,Dr Rhodes


Arnold,Tom
Braine,SirBernard


Atkins, RtHon H.(S'thorne)
Bright,Graham


Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne,John


Beith, A. J.
Bryan, Sir Paul


Benyon,W. (Buckingham)
Butcher,John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cadbury,Jocelyn


Best, Keith
Campbell-Savours,Dale


Biffen, RtHon John
Carlisle, RtHonM.(R'c'n)


Blackburn,John
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Chapman,Sydney
Onslow,Cranley


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Cockeram,Eric
Paisley, Rev lan


Colvin,Michael
Parris, Matthew


Cope,John
Patten, John (Oxford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Pattie,Geoffrey


Dorrell,Stephen
Penhaligon, David


Dover,Denshore
Percival,Sirlan


Dunn, James A.
Prior, Rt Hon James


Dunn,Robert(Dartford)
Renton,Tim


Eggar,Tim
Rhodes James, Robert


Fowler, RtHon Norman
RhysWilliams,SirBrandon


Gardner, Edward (SFylde)
Ridley,HonNicholas


Goodlad,Alastair
Ridsdale,SirJulian


Greenway, Harry
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Griffiths,PeterPortsm'thN)
Roper,John


Grimond,RtHonJ.
Rossi, Hugh


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Hamilton, Hon A.
Sainsbury,HonTimothy


Hampson,DrKeith
Scott,Nicholas


Hawksley, Warren
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Henderson,Barry
Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)


Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'rh'm)
Shelton,William(Streatham)


Holland,Philip(Carlton)
Shepherd.Colin(Hereford)


Hooson,Tom
Silvester,Fred


Horam,John
Sims, Roger


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Skinner,Dennis


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Smith,Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howells,Geraint
Speed, Keith


Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)
Speller,Tony


Hurd,Rt Hon Douglas
Sproat,lain


Jenkin,Rt Hon Patrick
Squire,Robin


Jopling,RtHon Michael
Stanbrook,lvor


Kershaw,SirAnthony
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lamont,Norman
Stevens,Martin


Lang, lan
StradlingThomas,J.


Latham,Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)


Lennox-Boyd,HonMark
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis,Kenneth(Rutland)
Thompson,Donald


Loveridge,John
Thornton,Malcolm


Lyell,Nicholas
Townsend,.CyrilD,(B'heath)


McNally,Thomas
Trippier,David


McQuade,John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Marland,Paul
Vaughan,DrGerard


Marlow,Antony
Waddington,David


Mates,Michael
Wainwright,R.(ColneV)


Mather,Carol
Wakeham,John


Mawhinney,DrBrian
Waller, Gary


Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin
Warren,Kenneth


Mayhew,Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Mellor,David
Wells,John(Maidstone)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wickenden,Keith


Mills,Iain(Meriden)
Wolfson,Mark


Miscampbell,Norman
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)



Monro,SirHector
Tellers for the Noes:


Montgomery,Fergus
Mr. David Hunt and


Needham,Richard
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Newton,Tony

Question accordingly negatived

Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong I want to come again, if I may, with great respect to the Chair, to the question of the protection of the rights o Back Benchers who want to speak against premature closure. When I last raised the matter in front of the Chairman of Ways and Means, he referred me to Standing Order No. 30, which, since I did not have a copy to hand effectively silenced me. Now that I have a copy to hand and it seems to be an appropriate opportunity to raise the matter, I will read what Standing Order No. 30 says:
After a question has been proposed a Member rising in hi place may claim to move, 'That the question be now put,' and


unless it shall appear to the Chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question, 'That the question be now put,' shall be put forthwith.
I do not claim that when my right hon. Friend rises to speed matters that is an abuse of the rules of the House. However, I do suggest that from time to time, in closuring discussion on the amendments, he is infringing the rights of the minority. That is the matter that I originally rose to ask about when I was told that it was a hypothetical case and one that I could not raise. After the closure I could not raise it because of the vote.
Chapter XX of "Erskine May", page 446 of the nineteenth edition, is headed: "Methods of Curtailing Debate" and the subheading is entitled "Obstruction by Prolongation of Debate." It reads as follows:
The ordinary closure.… which ends a debate by securing the immediate putting of the question under discussion, can be initiated by a single Member, but requires that not less than a hundred must vote in the majority. The rights of the minority are protected by the dicretionary power which is given to the Chair (and is frequently exercised) of refusing to accept a motion for the closure. These conditions are laid down in the standing orders on which the closure is based".
The discretion is entirely that of the Chair, whose decision is final and cannot be argued. However, it is difficult to get from "Erskine May" the rules that apply. When, on the next page, "Erskine May" gives an example, it is of Private Members' Bills or motions that have been debated during the sitting or half-sitting that the Standing Orders allot for such proceedings.
However, common sense must dictate that the Chair, in a situation such as this—when several hon. Members want to speak on a large group of amendments on a constitutional Bill where the Government have not introduced a guillotine—must then judge whether the speeches that are about to be made are likely to be constructive or whether the point has already been flogged to death, as is the situation in some debates.
For example, in the last debate we had a closure after—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is moving towards a debate on the Standing Order. The Standing Order is quite clear. It is for the Chair to decide whether the criteria have been met. It cannot be debated.

Mr. Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I know what the Standing Order says because I have read it out. It is clear to me, even at this hour.
I rise to ask, Mr. Armstrong, by what criterion you will allow either the moving of a closure after a short period of time or the prolongation of a debate to prevent the moving of the closure in order to protect the Back Benchers.

The First Deputy Chairman: It is entirely within the discretion of the Chair, having considered the Standing Order, whether the closure should be accepted. We cannot debate the interpretation of the Standing Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman understands that.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Can the Chair give some early indication of how it is likely to exercise its discretion? It would be helpful to those hon. Members who wish to speak. To illustrate the proposition by my position, I wished to speak in the last two debates but, unhappily, was unable to catch

the Chair's eye. Had I known that the closure would be moved in the way that it has been, I would not have bothered to compose two speeches.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It would be quite wrong to expect the Chair to say how the debate is likely to go. My job in the Chair is to interpret the Standing Order. That is entirely a matter for the Chair's discretion. I assure the Committee that that discretion is not exercised without considerable care and thought and previous reading of the Standing Orders backwards and forwards.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Every time that the closure has been moved during these debates, it has been accepted by the Chair. One would think that at some time in the debate, when so many hon. Members are waiting to speak, the discretion of the Chair would be used in favour of those hon. Members.

The First Deputy Chairman: All I can say is that every closure that is moved is judged by the Chair on its merits, and the Chair exercises its discretion in accordance with the Standing Order.

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 6, line 2:5, at end insert
'; and if an Order under section 2(1)(b) of this Act is revoked (and no other Order under that provision is in force) that period shall further continue as aforesaid for the period of one year beginning with the date of re vocation.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we are to take the following amendments:
(a) to the proposed amendment, to leave out 'one year' and insert 'two years'.
No. 114, in page 6, line 24, leave out from 'continue' to end of line 25 and insert:
'subject to an order being made by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) of that section in so far as it relates to the ending of the interim period on a date earlier than the date on which it would expire'.

Mr. Patten: This is a purely technical amendment which has been tabled by the Government to remove a possible area of doubt in paragraph 3(1) of the schedule. The paragraph provides that, while a partial devolution order is in force, the "interim period" of direct rule shall continue without the need for it to be extended by an order under section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. However, hon. Members may have noticed—and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has already drawn attention to the fact—that the paragraph makes no provision for the resumption of the interim period, should it prove necessary to revoke a partial devolution order or, if there has been more than one partial devolution order, the last extant such order. This, of course, is in contrast to paragraph 1 of schedule 1, which makes provision for the resumption of the interim period, should a full devolution order be revoked.
The Government believe that if partial devolution by one or more orders has been tried and failed, it seems reasonable that the only immediate alternative is a return to direct rule in respect of all the Northern Ireland Departments. Accordingly, I trust that the Committee will accept the amendment without too much debate, because it simply makes clear what would happen should partial devolution fail.
Two other amendments are taken together with this amendment. Clearly it would be discourteous of me to anticipate what is to be said about them. On amendment (a) to amendment No. 66, I can add little to what I said


in answer to the last debate. In the unfortunate circumstances of a collapse of partial devolution, we believe that the correct interim period should be one year, not two years as suggested in this amendment, for the reasons that I gave on the last group of amendments.
It would be equally discourteous to anticipate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) will say on amendment No. 114. However, I should like to make one observation. As I have just explained, paragraph 3(1) of schedule 1 provides—and it is important to get this straight—that, while a partial devolution order is in force, the "interim period" of direct rule shall continue without the need for any new order under section 1(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. That is because it would be strange to require an order to continue the "interim period" of direct rule during a time when a partially devolved Administration, which is of course dependent on the continuation of that "interim period", was in existence. I think that it must be self-evident that Departments which are not devolved under a partial devolution order should continue to be subject to direct rule. However, at this stage, I shall not seek to anticipate further what other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will say about these amendments.

Mr. Molyneaux: The Committee will find itself in difficulty unless the Minister has made provision to protect himself against the Patronage Secretary moving the closure before he has replied to our submissions and suggestions. Perhaps the Minister would like to reflect on that point.
As the Minister has said, there are close parallels between this debate and the one which preceded it. I said in that debate that a lengthy period would be objectionable, but one has to admit that there are some attractions. The practice of annual reviews that we have followed for the past eight years tends to breed cynicism. The Minister asks for renewal of the direct rule order. He holds out the expectation that it will be the last time and that possibly, in the 12-months interval, some arrangement will be made—I shall not use the term "cobbled together" because I was reprimanded on a previous occasion for doing so.
11.30 pm
I am inclined to agree that instability is created by constant chopping and changing and by the annual renewals which hold out the hope to all types of troublemakers, whether political troublemakers on terrorist troublemakers, that if the issue is up for grabs at 12-monthly intervals, there is merit in their doing their worst.
There are, however, obvious drawbacks in going for a lengthy period. A lengthy period would tend to put a stop on the consideration of alternatives. The Secretary of State of the day would tend to be frozen in an attitude of mind where he would be expecting to try to breathe new life into an organisation which had, to a great extent, become extinct instead of focusing his mind on far more sensible and realistic alternatives. It would be a great pity if the Committee came to the conclusion that a period significantly lengthier than that proposed in the Government amendment should be approved.
One also has to think about the unfortunate breed of native Ministers. They would be chopped in mid-term through no fault of their own for policies, or lack of policies, over which they had little or no control. Once chopped, the native Minister would be reluctant to go through the same hoop whether it was in six, nine or 12 months. Politics being the type of profession it is, the native Ministers would be regarded, rightly or wrongly, as failures and has-beens, again through no fault of their own but more likely than not through the misdemeanours of Westminster Governments of whatever political complexion. The native Ministers would be held accountable and responsible by those who elected them. They would also be held to be accountable, through the Members of the Assembly, to those who elected the Members.
As I have pointed out before, it would be no use the native Ministers declaiming responsibility after they had been chopped and saying to Assembly Members or, worse still, to the people who elected them "Let us have another try and we will do better next time." It would not be in their power to do better or worse. The United Kingdom Government will still have control of the reins and the purse strings. All that the native Ministers will be able to do is to work within the limitations of their role.
A more serious aspect is that Ministers who are chopped will find it difficult to work out arrangements to reinstate themselves during the interim, deep-freeze period. If they were chopped shortly before an Assembly election, they would stand little chance of being re-elected.
For the reasons that I gave in the brief intervention that was the only contribution I was able to make to the previous debate, we want to break out of the mould of annual renewals, but we do not agree that the period should be excessively long.
I am sorry if what I have to say appears to be a personal attack on the Secretary of State and his Ministers, but we seem to be witnessing a go-slow in economic matters. Lord Gowrie said on a television programme in Northern Ireland that the economic situation in the Province would continue to deteriorate as long as "we" are here. That "we" was the noble Lord the Minister of State, the Secretary of State and their fellow Ministers. That can be seen on the transcript of the television programme. Confession may be good for the soul and Lord Gowrie's startling admission will no doubt have taken him up a few rungs of Jacob's ladder.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: What does the hon. Gentleman think that Lord Gowrie meant by those remarks? Did he mean that things would get worse as long as he was in office?

Mr. Molyneaux: The remarks were interpreted by many of my constituents as meaning that as long as the Conservative Government are in office the economy of Northern Ireland will continue to deteriorate. I did not interpret them in that way. I took them to mean that the economy will continue to deteriorate for as long as the present occupants of Stormont Castle are in office.

Mr. Prior: It would be a travesty if the Committee were left with the impression that that was what my noble Friend intended to convey. The hon. Gentleman has taken his comments completely out of context. My noble Friend was making the case for devolved government and said that he felt that Ulster people could perhaps make a bigger


contribution towards their own future than English Ministers could make, however hard they tried. In addition, there is no justification for suggesting that Ministers have not tried to do everything that they can or have not tried to get as much public expenditure as they can. The hon. Gentleman may want more, but his right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) sometimes thinks that we give too much.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am sure that the Committee and all who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification, or for explaining what he thinks the words of his noble Friend meant. I accept the Secretary of State's word that that would be the interpretation that he would place upon them. However, the right hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, has fallen into his own trap. If the Northern Ireland economy were to start to improve under a devolved Government, would it relapse and go downhill again if we reverted to direct rule? The right hon. Gentleman has never taken up that issue.
How could the economy improve dramatically, significantly or to any great extent if we had a devolved Government with no direct access to the Cabinet Room? I have put that question to the Secretary of State on another occasion. He gave the rather roundabout answer that the economy would improve because the security situation would improve and that that would improve because everyone would be represented in an improbable Cabinet. That is not the real world.

Mr. Prior: I have understood the hon. Gentleman and his party to wish for devolved government. Presumably they wish for devolved government because they think that they can make a better job of governing the Province than anyone else. The hon. Gentleman spends half his time arguing that he wants devolved government and the other half arguing that he wants integration. He had better make up his mind what he wants.

Mr. Molyneaux: I made up my mind long ago. I want to protect those who will be elected to the Assembly, those native Ministers who may be appointed after the cobbling-together operation has been achieved. I want to protect them from the blame for the first factory closure after the Assembly is elected, when the electors say to them "We elected you to stop all this. The Secretary of State said that you would stop it when you took office. Why haven't you stopped it?" I am seeking to protect them and, it is misleading, to put it no higher than that, for any Secretary of State, or anyone else, to give the impression that the economy of Northern Ireland will improve dramatically once an Assembly is elected and in the improbable event of an Executive being formed. I note, Mr. Armstong, that you are showing signs of impatience. The Secretary of State led me astray.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The amendments relate to timing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate what he is saying to them.

Mr. Molyneaux: I hope, Mr. Armstrong, that you will permit the Minister who replies to the debate to clarify some of these issues. They are important when we consider whether the devolved structure will continue to operate or whether it will collapse, which is an eventuality that is being taken account of in the amendment. I hope

that we can arrive at a clear understanding of the native Ministers who will be held accountable for failures for which they are not responsible.
A long period between reviews would tend to restrict Secretaries of State and their Ministers from examining workable alternatives. It would distract them from doing what the Under-Secretary of State hinted at. He did more than hint but I will not use against him the words that he used in a previous debate when he talked about the "search for political progress". If this improbable structure collapses despite all our helpful suggestions that are designed to make it more stable, I hope that Ministers will not twiddle their thumbs and say "It is not our business now. We shall revert to direct rule and claw back power. There is no obligation on us to do anything more until this local lot get together and decide that they can achieve another 70 per cent. in some miraculous fashion." I would hope that the Ministers, whoever they might be, would think more const-uctively, examine possible options and enter consultations with a willingness to listen during the period for which the amendments provide.
The Minister suggested that the annual renewal would be beneficial and would give the House the opportunity to consider improvements. There has never been a lack of constructive and useful suggestions from Northern Ireland Members and others, on both the Conservative and Opposition Benches. The difficulty has been that Ministers have flatly refused to listen. They have kept talking and hoped that something would turn up without their having to take any constructive steps towards that objective.
I hope that the lesson that we shall learn from the debate today is that, if we come to that state in future, intervals of renewal, whether annual, two-yearly or slightly longer or whether, as a result of a collapse, they come at an interim stage, Ministers will join with Northern Ireland Members and others—I exclude no one and I am delighted to see so many parties represented tonight—to see how, to refer to what is said in the Queen's Speech, we can work out ways of returning to the people of Northern Ireland more real control over their own affairs.

Mr. Budgen: It is a pleasure to take part in a debate after a speech by the leader of the Official Unionist Party. It is strange wher the leader of an important party is prevented by the closure from expressing in a significant debate his views about a constitutional measure.
I am sure that those hon. Members who have had the pleasure of considering amendment No. 66 will never again wish to dispute the Secretary of State's proposition that this is a flexible arrangement. My goodness, it is flexible. First, there is a proposal to grant powers, then one for taking them back after a period of discussion and, perhaps, disagreement. Moreover, we may take them back either wholly or in part.
One reflects on the misunderstandings in England about the powers of Members of Parliament and local government. Many hon. Members who represent English constituencies must find that a high proportion of people who come to their surgeries believe that Members of Parliament deal directly with housing matters. That is a good example of the way in which the elector in the booth or the man in the street does not know where the buck stops, or where it stops first.
In England, the House of Commons is a supervisory body over local government. What a marvellous body it will be if, for the sake of argument, it is eventually decided that the Ulster Assembly may discuss security.
Groups representing 70 per cent. of the Assembly may then get together and put a proposal to the Secretary of State that they should have control over security. The proposal would then come before the House of Commons for the first time. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) did not fully consider what would happen if there was a minority Government in Westminster. If the Secretary of State recommended a proposal to the House in all good faith and it was voted down, would not that be a marvellous prescription for worse than conflict—for real hatred between the Ulster Assembly and the Westminster Parliament? Does not that illustrate the potential in this proposal for conflict and instability?
Let us suppose that the Assembly finds that it has lost the cross-community support that is said to be the sine qua non of activity by the Assembly. We then refer to paragraph 61 of the White Paper, which deals with the multiplicity of options open to the Secretary of State if he wishes to revoke the powers that he has granted to the Assembly or to change the personality of the Executive carrying out those powers. This, again, is a wonderful example of flexibility.
Let us consider the position of some unfortunate woman whose husband has been killed in a sectarian murder in Ulster. She may know that, in the scenario that I have described, the Assembly would have the power to supervise the security services. She may then find that that power has been or may be taken back to Westminster. According to paragraph 61 of the White Paper, the Secretary of State
would be able to invite the existing Executive to continue on a caretaker basis for up to six months; or to appoint, again for a maximum of six months, a caretaker administration of his own choosing whose members need not come from the Assembly; or resume himself the powers which had been devolved. The Assembly could be prorogued; or returned to the original scrutinising, consultative and advisory functions, without the powers conferred by the devolution order; or dissolved so that fresh elections could be held. The objective would be to sustain or reconstitute a devolved administration but in the last resort he would have the option of reverting to direct rule in the form which now exists.
How would that poor lady know where the buck stopped? Her position would be far worse than that of the constituent who comes to me in the mistaken belief that I control the allocation of council housing in some part of Wolverhampton. She would not know where she stood. What is more, neither would the Assembly nor, as is plain from amendment No. 66, the Secretary of State. It is clear that, despite the detailed consideration given to this, no doubt by highly intelligent civil servants and equally intelligent parliamentary draftsmen, the Government have not considered what the constitutional position would be in the event of a partial revocation and whether one would then fall back on the direct rule position which requires annual review. It is a position, as the Secretary of State would say, of great flexibility. My goodness, it is one of great flexibility. It is also one of great uncertainty.
The least that we can do is to vote for amendment (a), because then, after revocation of a partially devolved order, there would not be a further review for another two

years. That is not a long period of stability after all the uncertainty and conflict between Governments that will have given rise to the revocation becoming necessary, but at least two years would pass before the fire was raked over again, or the wound opened again, and the people of Ulster were once more alerted to the constitutional instability that had been foisted upon them.
If we are to have this masterpiece of flexibility, as it is described by those who do not understand or agree with the prime necessity of stability in the constitution, and if its supporters cannot adhere to the proposition that stability is the single most important characteristic, let us at least ensure that the unhappy people of Ulster are not reminded of their misfortune on an annual basis but are given a couple of years of peace.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I shall speak to amendment (a), which proposes to leave out "one year" and insert "two years".
The paragraph to which the Government amendment, and my amendment to it, refer is remarkable. It presents a strange paradox, particularly to those who have taken part for the past two or three hours in the debate on the question of direct rule, alias the interim period, and its renewal. The mechanism of part II is primarily concerned with modifying the provisions of the 1974 Act in respect of those Departments that have been devolved by a clause 2(1)(b) order. But paragraph 3(1) makes provision for what is left of direct rule, and that may be all the Departments except one. It stipulates that in those circumstances direct rule will continue not with annual, biennial or even decennial renewal, but indefinitely, without any such renewal order.
That is a remarkable situation. It means that, whereas hitherto with 100 per cent. direct rule we have been renewing, and therefore reviewing, direct rule every 12 months, let there be but one Department devolved, be it the least important Department, and direct rule for the rest continues indefinitely without the interim period having been renewed.
I emphasise that because it is remarkable that the same Government who have recently rejected a proposal to let perhaps a further year go by before renewing direct rule, in the context of part I of the schedule, are now defending a provision that, subject only to there being devolution of a single Department, the rest of direct rule can go on till kingdom come without any review or renewal. That is a most extraordinary arrangement.
12 midnight
I had the misfortune to miss the very first sentences of the Under-Secretary's introduction of the amendment, but I do not see any dissent coming from him. Therefore, I take it that paragraph 3(1) has its natural meaning. I shall proceed to pray that in aid when I come presently to the content of my amendment.
However, it was an enlightened act on the part of the Secretary of State to table this amendment. I appreciate that it is now no longer the only Government amendment on the Amendment Paper. Nevertheless, a word of appreciation should be said to the right hon. Gentleman for having tabled Government amendments in Committee.
Some of us have lived through protracted Committees when every argument and debate was dominated by the Government's determination to make no concessions, not to understand the points that were made and not to accept


even the most necessary amendments because they realised that to do so would involve the necessity of a Report stage.
That has not been the action of the right hon. Gentleman. Not only has he offered to contemplate amendments on Report, that we have not yet seen, but he has also ensured, by having amended the Bill in this and other respects, that there will be a proper Report stage on the Floor of the House. Whatever other criticisms I have to offer, I must say that that is an agreeable contrast to the experience that from time to time some of us have had. However, in the presence of a Liberal Member, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I shall not specify the occasion that was most painful and destructive of constitutional confidence in the procedures of the House.
I now come to the revocation amendment in the name of the Secretary of State. I am not absolutely sure how this amendment came to be on the Amendment Paper, except that it is out of the good will and sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman.
One would like to know whether the possibility of a partial or rolling devolution order being revoked had not occurred to the Government or their advisers until the Bill was in Committee. Alternatively, having got the provision for revocation in the case of full devolution in paragraph 1(b), did they feel that somehow there was some machinery whereby they did not need to provide for the consequences of revocation of a rolling devolution order?
Be that as it may, and it is a rather curious phenomenon, they have now provided that if the one ewe lamb slaughtered—the one devolved Department—fails to fulfil the conditions for survival, the order under which it subsists will be revoked. What will happen then? Not only will the interim state of affairs—direct rule—no longer escape scrutiny for one, two, five or 10 years, but we shall be back to the one-year interim period arrangements under the 1974 Act.
I could have understood that—indeed, I believed that I understood it—in the context of part I, but, in the context where one devolution secures eternity for the remainder of direct rule, it seems rather curious for the Government to insist that if that one devolution must be cancelled we must return to direct rule, living from year to year.
It cannot be argued in this case, as the Under-Secretary of State did on an earlier amendment, that no stability is involved, because the Secretary of State might pop along with another rolling devolution order and might restart the rolling procedure that was so unhappily interrupted. We are not, as in part I, dealing with full devolution and the complete supersession of direct rule. We are dealing with, initially, an entirely tentative entry upon the rolling process. No argument can be sustained that, by increasing the period of immunity, the order should be invoked, as my amendment proposed, and we should not be creating a genuine stability or a genuine prospect of things going on as they did under direct rule. Under that hypothesis, direct rule will be the major form of government in the Province. Consequently, the argument for giving it some stability or a longer lease of life than it has had since 1974 is much stronger now than in part I. Like Lord Clive on a famous occasion, I am astonished at my hon. Friends and myself for not taking a leaf out of the Government's eternal direct rule provision in the sub-paragraph as it stands and asking for a longer period than two years.
We shall no doubt have several weeks to reflect upon this and other matters. Who knows but that reflection between Committee stage and Report stage may not move us or other hon. Members to put down on report a different amendment in the light of mature reflection? Our debates have sometimes been truncated. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who has had most to complain of and who has been most plaintive on the subject—I do not use the adjective in a deprecatory way—should take comfort from the fact that the assurance of a Report stage after we have parted from this amendment will be a security that the Chair and hon. Members have an opportunity to ensure that the points that were made and the issues that were inadequately debated in Committee can be considered on Report. That is the purpose of a Report stage and it is a comfort and a reassurance. If any hon. Member has been kept out of the truncated debates by any desire of mine to put forward a case—I am glad to have the disavowal of any such imputation by a gesture of the hon. and learned Member for Burton—the prospect of a Report stage would be sufficient excuse and recompense for a temporary deprivation in Committee.
I therefore hope that the Government, estopped as they are by the extraordinary provision in paragraph 3(1) for eternal or quasi-eternal direct rule without renewal of the interim period, will not look as churlishly as I thought they were disposed to do upon the prospects of a modest extension of the interim period without the necessity of renewal, which is proposed in the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am pleased to follow the birthday speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
I understand that there will be no Division on amendment No. 114, and I would not wish there to be one because I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will feel that he can accept it.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary explained, when he made his agreeable speech, that paragraph 3(1) of schedule 1, part II, which we seek to amend, deals with arrangements under partial devolution. It provides that while a partial devolution order is in force the interim period—direct rule—
referred to in subsection (3) of section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 shall continue
ad infinitum without the need for any renewal order.
Those who are following the argument will readily appreciate that this is an amendment that the Government might accept. We have heard much of flexibility in these debates, and the amendment would add to the flexibility of the powers of the Secretary of State in respect of what is called "sustaining devolution", as set out in paragraph 61 of the White Paper.
That paragraph gloomily considers what the Under-Secretary called the "unhappy day" when the Executive, if it is ever set up, might lose the broad support in the Assembly that had led to devolution. The paragraph envisages the possible necessity for the Assembly to be prorogued
or returned to the original scrutinising, consultative and advisory functions, without the powers conferred by the devolution order; or dissolved so that fresh elections could be held. The objective would be to sustain or reconstitute a devolved administration but in the last resort he would have the option of


reverting to direct rule in the form which now exists. The same principles would apply should arrangements for partial devolution lose the necessary support in the Assembly.
Here is a strange thing. It has been the contention of the Secretary of State that political stability requires the Government's proposals as set out in the White Paper and in the Bill. It is my view, and the view of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that political stability will not be secured in this way. The Bill will have the opposite effect. However, it is the position of the Government that political stability is an objective that may be attained by the passing of the Bill.
Here we are envisaging the return from political instability because of the failure of the Executive to work. We are considering a return to the relative political stability that in fact obtains in Northern Ireland under the benign and paternal aegis of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, a system of direct rule that, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said in an earlier debate—I agree with him—commands general acquiescence in the Province. That enables me to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office who have attended the debates so attentively and assiduously and shown such courtesy to the Committee despite all their many burdens and preoccupations. We are truly grateful. I am sure that they will agree that the debates this evening are proceeding in a pleasant and agreeable manner.

Mr. Lawrence: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. A point that has been repeatedly made on the Government Back Benches, and as repeatedly rejected by the Secretary of State, is the effect that the legislation is likely to have on political stability, economic recovery and the defeat of terrorism. In an excellent paper that my hon. Friend gave—Salisbury Papers 10, "Ulster Six British Counties", he quotes a lecturer in economics at Queen's university, Belfast as saying:
If Mr. Prior proceeds with his proposed rolling folly, the instability and bad publicity which will ensue will be another nail in the investment coffin. If he genuinely wants to help the Northern Ireland economy, he should get on with governing it along the same lines as Scotland and Wales.
Is there any other view to which my hon. Friend can point that is authoritative, other than that which Mr. Boyd Black makes and my hon. Friend quotes, which supports that contention? It is vital to the general approach to the legislation and this series of amendments that we should be convinced, before we give our support to the Secretary of State, that the legislation will not be another nail in the investment coffin, that the economy will thrive and that the alternative that my hon. Friend proposes will cause instability of an economic, political and terrorist kind. I am asking for more evidence than that which Mr. Boyd Black gives, if my hon. Friend with all his experience and knowledge of the area can give it, so that those of us who are in two minds about the matter can balance the views.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying too far from the amendments, which deal with timing.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: We are discussing political instability when the Executive cannot be made to work and it is necessary for partial devolution to be revoked. My

hon. and learned Friend has quoted a leading economist, Mr. Boyd Black, of Queen's university, Belfast as saying that in his opinion devolution is likely to lead to greater instability. I am not in a position to quote other economic authorities, and I am sure that you would not permit it, Mr. Armstrong. The White Paper says that the Government are envisaging the possibility that their proposals will lead to greater political instability—otherwise there would be no need for consideration to be given to the revocation of devolution, if devolution ever comes about.
Let us suppose that our fears are realised and direct rule has to be resumed. Under the 1974 Act, direct rule is renewable each year. Amendment No. 114, which I had the honour to put forward, would enable the Secretary of State to restore partial devolution earlier than the expiry of the period of direct rule to which he had resorted, if he felt able.
It is known that I am not in sympathy with the Bill, which tends to differentiate between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom and is therefore injurious both to Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole. But our duty is to make what improvements are in our power. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the amendment.

Mr. Michael Brown: I agree with the schedule in its present form. The burden of the argument in support of the amendments is that in the event of failure by the Executive and the orders having to be revoked so that direct rule is re-established—unhappy though that would be—Parliament will be given the opportunity to consider, as it has previously, the operation of the interim period under the 1974 Act. I should regard that as an unhappy development.
The purpose of the debate is to discuss the extent to which there will be stability, or instability, if the Executive fails. Wittingly or unwittingly, when my right hon. Friend drafted paragraph 3(1) he was right. If Northern Ireland goes through the unhappy experience of direct rule in the next few years, with cross-community support and the necessary procedural measures and discussions in the Assembly and in the House of Commons, and the Executive is unable to make progress so that revocation orders have to be made, I should like direct rule to be reestablished with no opportunity for reviewing it. That would create total stability and everyone in Northern Ireland would know the position.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, the people of Northern Ireland will have experienced the present system, government by the Executive and possibly the various options, before a return to direct rule. If we reach the unhappy stage where a decision has to be taken as to who will run a Department, all the people who work in that Department and all those subjected to government by that Department in Northern Ireland should have the absolute security of knowing that for a considerable period there will be stability. No amendment has been put down specifying a long period of, say, 10 years such as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in regard to part I. Paragraph 3(1) should remain as drafted.
The people of Northern Ireland have been dragged through the hedge backwards and forwards and then backwards again, and they must have a period of complete stability. In the previous debate I was fortunate to be


allowed to intervene in the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), when I posed a question which I should like to put again to the Committee. With regard to general suspension of the orders, if that unhappy day, to use his words, were to dawn, he said that the Secretary of State might want to reserve his position and, in the event of direct rule still existing, make yet another suggestion.
Assuming that direct rule had given way to the Executive, that the Executive had failed and that direct rule had come back to my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford said on part I—the argument is the same for partial suspension as for general suspension—that we should have the opportunity for an annual review in the traditional way that we have done since 1974 so that the Secretary of State could put forward a new initiative to overcome the problem of failure of the Executive if he did not want a return to direct rule. That does not appeal to me, certainly with regard to the partial suspension of paragraph 3(1), for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Because I agree with his arguments, I would rather see the schedule remain in the form in which it was drafted before my right hon. Friend tabled the Government amendment.
I must speculate with the Committee on why the schedule was drafted in its present form. I suspect that my right hon. Friend thought, as I do, that, having had the unfortunate experience of a Department in Northern Ireland being governed in various ways over a relatively short period, it should be essential for the Departments to have the period of stability with which we are concerned in the Committee.
12.30 am
Why has my right hon. Friend tabled the amendment? I thought that, like me, he believed that a period of calm over the next few months was essential after the stirring up of the waters. What will happen in the unhappy event of failure if we then have to revert to direct rule? If, after returning to direct rule, we want to make progress in the future, it will be difficult.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. I have been listening to him as carefully as I can. Has he understood the drafting of the schedule? Paragraph 3(1) provides that, while a rolling order is in force, direct rule shall continue without the necessity of renewal. The hon. Gentleman seems to be construing it as if it means when such an order has been in force but has ceased to be.
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's attempt to use the words of the schedule to serve his purpose, but do they do that or do they have the opposite effect?

Mr. Brown: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps my failing is not to have tabled an amendment to clarify my argument. Perhaps I should have tabled an amendment to add to the schedule as originally drafted.
I shall seek a way out of my difficulty by speaking specifically against my right hon. Friend's amendment. I do not have an alternative amendment prepared. However, I do not want to see any element of doubt develop as to what will happen in the unhappy event that the Executive looking after a particular Government Department fails. If my right hon. Friend has to resume his present powers, I

want to ensure that for a long time, going beyond the necessity to deceive the House of the possible annual change in the direct rule situation, there should not be an opportunity for my right hon. Friend or any of his successors to try another experiment. In the absence of anything better, I acquiesce with direct rule.
As we are to have an opportunity for further reflection on the matter on Report, I may seek to table an amendment to resolve the difficulty in which I find myself, and which has been brought to my attention by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
I wish my right hon. Friend god-speed. I hope that the Bill will prove me wrong. However, the Committee has a duty to consider the possibility of failure of the experiment. So we must consider the period after the failure of the experiment, as the Bill considered that possibility. It is a most unusual situation. I cannot think of many examples in the past when a Bill has not assumed total success. As the Bill invites us to consider the prospect that there may not be agreement, it is important for us to consider that possibility.
I shall vote against Government amendment No. 66. I note that it may not be possible for us to divide on amendment No. 114. I regret to say that I shall also vote against the amendment to the Secretary of State's amendment, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Down, South, because I am anxious to ensure that, in the event of the failure of this experiment, there is a possibility for further experiment.
My right hon. Friend is entitled to ask the Committee, and the Committee is entitled to deny him his request, for the right to experiment. There is a chance—a slim one in my view—that his experiment will pay off. However, I do not believe that he or any of his successors have the right to leave open the possibility of further experiments. For that reason, I shall oppose Government amendment No. 66, and regret that I have come to my senses somewhat late regarding the implications of this part of the schedule.

Mr. Budgen: May I point out to my hon. Friend that his last remarks have the support of The Times? Yesterday's second leader says that if the proposed Assembly gets as far as the talking shop stage, and even if the Assembly then refuses the powers that are offered,
Devolution will then be dead.
In amendment No. 66, we are not considering the possibility of stage one going wrong; we are contemplating stages five, six or seven going wrong after a long period of conflict, perhaps with the House, and also conflict within Ulster. Surely, if The Times can predict that devolution will be dead after only one stage we are entitled to predict that it ought to be dead after six or seven stages.

Mr. Brown: It is probably due to luck more than anything else that The Times and I happen to be on the same side. My hon. Friend is correct. The impact of part II, and, for that matter, part I, of schedule 1 takes us to the end of the line with regard to devolution. The schedules, drafted as they are by my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, must acknowledge that we are debating here a position at the very end of the argument in favour of devolution for Northern Ireland, for a particular Government Department or for all the Government Departments. Therefore, it is right and proper that we should say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that if we reach this sad unhappy stage a great deal of choppy water will have passed under the bridge. By the time we have


finally managed to swim along with the choppy waters and have just about managed to prevent ourselves from drowning, we will have to ensure that in the foreseeable future there will not be the opportunity for further experimentation.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's argument. He has neglected to make any reference to the grounds for revocation of an order. Surely the grounds for the revocation of an order must affect the value judgments that he has made about the provisions as a whole. There may be many grounds on which an order will be revoked. Perhaps it does not command the commendation of the electorate. It may be something different. Surely the grounds on which revocation is made is the pertinent consideration.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but we have a problem. We are constrained by the motion moved by my right hon. Friend at the beginning of our deliberations under which we are considering schedule 1 before we have debated clause 5.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is all very well to take the idea of devolution on trust, to give it a chance, to see how it goes and to see whether a system of flexibility may do the trick whereas previous tricks have failed, but that that type of extremely benevolent and optimistic argument does not apply when we reach the end of the road? Under amendment No. 66 we are seeing the end of the road after many different constitutional innovations have been tried, and when the experiment has been finally revoked it has come to a sad and unhappy end. Surely at that stage, as envisaged by yesterday's unusually courageous article in The Times, the House of Commons is saying that devolution is dead and the only logical alternative is integration.

Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend. The difficulty is that we ought to be debating the schedule alongside clause 5. We had a lengthy debate on the motion about the order in which we should consider the clauses and we now see the difficulties that the Committee faces in not being able to discuss clause 5 until later.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made that point. He must get back to the amendment.

Mr. Brown: I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion, Mr. Armstrong. I apologise for straying; that was not my intention. I will table an amendment on Report to close the option when the series of experiments in partial devolution are completed. I hope that they are a success, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues have invited us to consider the possibility that success may not be secured, I shall attempt to write into the schedule an amendment to close the option for a long time ahead. I cannot support the Government amendment.

Mr. Grimond: We all want stability in Northern Ireland, but I do not believe that direct rule equals stability. As long as we have direct rule, we shall not have stability, because direct rule is unanimously regarded as a temporary state of affairs.
If there is a failure or partial failure of the Secretary of State's proposals, we may have to go back to direct rule

temporarily, but if that unhappy event should occur we shall have to go on to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), which is virtually some form of integration.
Amendments that provide that direct rule will have to be reviewed at fairly frequent intervals—not necessarily annually, but perhaps biennially—are essential and we should not delude ourselves that we can go back to an indefinite period of direct rule, unsupervised and undebated in the House, and put forward no further proposals for the better government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Patten: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) for his contribution to the debate. Indeed, I am grateful to him for his attendance in Committee. He has added a great quality to the debate and he advanced his arguments admirably shortly.

Mr. Prior: I too, admire the brevity of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).

Mr. Patten: There is no doubt that direct rule is an imperfect instrument that cannot of itself guarantee stability, whether that be social stability, community stability, economic stability or stability of the security situation. If partial or total devolution had taken place and had collapsed, a return to direct rule would have been a stopgap but the Government of the day would have had to address their mind to the political progress that could be made in the Province.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister having gone so far with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I was hoping that he would finish the journey with him and draw the same conclusion.

Mr. Patten: We are considering a Bill that will attempt to set up an Assembly in Northern Ireland. That is the Government's policy. I do not wish to speculate at this stage on the Assembly having partial or total devolved powers and then failing. Perhaps it was the presence of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and not only his brief and pointed contribution, which caused the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux), who is no longer in his place, to break into "SDP-speak" when discussing the appropriate length of the interim period and to talk about breaking the mould of annual renewals. That was a variant on the phrase of his right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who spoke of breaking the annual habit. I think that in replying to the debate on the previous group of amendments I gave the reasons that lead us to think that one year is correct for the examination, review and renewal of iterim periods.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) are rightly concerned with the stability of the current situation and political landscape in Northern Ireland. I must tell them that they are mistaken if they believe that support for an alteration in the period during which no review and renewal of direct rule may take place will of itself guarantee stability. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in the previous debate, amendments such as the ones that we are discussing, drafted in the way in which they are drafted, would not prevent any Government after a return to direct rule deciding during that period to bring forward some scheme or design for the better government of Northern Ireland.

Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend will know better than I do that the opening words of amendment No. 66 read:
If an Order under Section 2(1)(b) of this Act is revoked".
Does my hon. Friend intend during the course of his remarks to be more specific about the circumstances in which the Government would revoke such an order? Would it be, as it were, the reverse of the cross-community support that my right hon. Friend adumbrated during our discussion on whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill? If so, will the same standards apply?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. I fear, subject to your guidance, Mr. Armstrong, that he is a little ahead of the Committee. These are matters that we shall discuss fully when we consider clause 5, which involves the circumstances in which devolution, partial or full, can be revoked. Perhaps I may be permitted to leave those arguments until that time, when they may more happily be considered. We are addressing ourselves to highly technical points in the schedule. The technical point that I was attempting, I hope with some success, to point out to my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Scunthorpe and Wolverhampton, South-West was that even if they managed to secure an extension of the period before which an interim period is examined from one to two years, that will not stop any future Government deciding to introduce other schemes.

Mr. Budgen: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the process of annual review ensures that the Government's assertion that direct rule is only temporary is brought to the attention of the House and the people of Ulster. If, on the other hand, it is reviewed only every two years, there is a greater appearance of stability.

Mr. Patten: That may be so, but, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend has said, if any Government decided between day one and the end of the two-year period to introduce a new scheme for the better government of Northern Ireland, they would be completely at liberty to do so. No amendment to the Bill could prevent that.
Perhaps I may address amendments Nos. 114 and 66 together. When there is no devolution, Parliament must be given the opportunity to discuss whether it wants direct rule to continue, at present on an annual basis. That is a matter of fact. I hope that I am coming to a more meaty point. When Parliament has approved a partial devolution order, it has then decided what form of government it wants, as the sovereign body for Northern Ireland. in reaction to requests for that form of government from the Assembly. It would be inconsistent to reopen the question of direct rule continuing in other Departments. At that stage, Parliament and the Assembly, united by mutual consent, would be travelling towards full devolution. That is the whole intention of the Bill. Partial devolution is only a stepping stone to full devolution.
It is wholly right for the Government to renew the interim period of direct rule annually when there is no devolution. Parliament must have an annual stock-taking. But, once Parliament has decided to go down the devolution route and it is agreed that there should be partial devolution, it goes without saying that direct rule can be the only option that is open to those Departments that have not been devolved.
Amendment No. 114 would, therefore, simply not fit logically with partial devolution. If Parliament really

wanted to consider whether direct rule should continue for non-devolved Departments, surely it would be essential, first of all, to end partial devolution. I hope that I am not tiresomely repeating the essential point. While a devolution order is in force, there can be no alternative but to continue direct rule for non-devolved Departments.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister just said that if there is one devolved Department, it is obvious that all the others must be under direct rule and that we therefore do not need to renew or review direct rule. Is he saying that if there is no devolution at all to any Department, direct rule is not the alternative for all Departments? I cannot believe that he is advancing that argument seriously.

Mr. Patten: The argument—I can only repeat what I have said—is that while a partial devolution order is in force there can be no alternative to continued direct rule for non-devolved Departments because they are part and parcel of the rolling devolution that will have been begun by the first Department being devolved under transferred powers to the Assembly. I hope that the Assembly, the Government and the House will be marching hand in hand as quickly as possible to full devolution. If it is any reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman, while the non-devolved Departments continue under direct rule they will be subject to the scrutiny, which I expect will be very severe and strict, of the departmentally related committees of the Assembly. I rest my case.

1 am

Sir John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend has not dealt with the purpose of my amendment, which was to be helpful to the Government and to enable the Secretary of State to proceed with rolling back again if the opportunity occurred to get devolution going again without waiting for the expiry of the normal period. The amendment was intended to be helpful and I should have thought that it could he accepted.

Mr. Patten: I am extremely sorry. I apologise to my hon. Friend if he feels that I have been in any way discourteous. Unfortunately, it is not our view that amendment No. 114 would help in that way, for the reasons that I have tried to explain.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Jopling: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 137, Noes 24.

Division No. 212]
[1 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Alton, David
Brooke, Hon Peter


Arnold, Tom
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Baker, Kernneth(St.M'bone)
Butcher, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Best, Keith
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Blackburn, John
Chapman, Sydney


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cockeram, Eric


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Colvin, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Cope, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dover, Denshore






Dunn, James A.
Percival,Sirlan


Dykes, Hugh
Prior, Rt Hon James


Eggar,Tim
Rathbone,Tim


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Rhodes James, Robert


Goodlad,Alastair
RhysWilliams,SirBrandon


Gow, lan
Ridley,HonNicholas


Griffiths, E. (B 'ySt. Edm 'ds)
Ridsdale,SirJulian


Grimond,RtHonJ.
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Roper,John


Hampson,Dr Keith
Rossi, Hugh


Heddle,John
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Henderson,Barry
Scott,Nicholas


Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Holland,Philip(Carlton)
Shaw,Michael (Scarborough)


Hooson,Tom
Shelton,William(Streartham)


Howell,Rt HonD. (G'ldf'd)
Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)


Howells,Geraint
Silvester,Fred


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sims, Roger


Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)
Smith,Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hurd,Rt Hon Douglas
Speed, Keith


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Speller.Tony


Jopling.RtHonMichael
Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)


Kershaw,SirAnthony
Sproat,lain


Lamont,Norman
Squire,Robin


Lang, lan
Stevens,Martin


Latham,Michael
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Lennox-Boyd.HonMark
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
StradlingThomas.J.


Loveridge,John
Taylor, Teddy(S'end E)


Lyell, Nicholas
Temple-Morris,Peter


Marland,Paul
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Marlow.Antony
Thompson,Donald


Mates,Michael
Thornton,Malcolm


Mather,Carol
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Mawhinney,DrBrian
Trippier,David


Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin
van Straubenzee,Sir W.


Mayhew,Patrick
Vaughan,Dr Gerard


Mellor,David
Viggers, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waddington,David


Mills,lain(Meriden)
Wainwright,R.(ColneV)


Miscampbell, Norman
Wakeham,John


Mitchell,David (Basingstoke)
Waller, Gary


Moate, Roger
Warren,Kenneth


Monro,SirHector
Wells, Bowen


Montgomery, Fergus
Wells,John(Maidstone)


Needham, Richard
Wickenden,Keith


Newton,Tony
Wolfson,Mark


Onslow,Cranley
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)



Parris,Matthew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patten, John (Oxford)
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Penhaligon,David





NOES


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
McQuade,John


Body,Richard
Molyneaux,James


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Budgen,Nick
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Cranborne,Viscount
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cryer,Bob
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Dunlop,John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Farr,John
Stanbrook,lvor


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Walker, B, (Perth)


Gardiner,George (Reigate)
Winterton,Nicholas


Goodhart,SirPhilip



Lawrence, lvan
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. William Ross and


McCusker,H.
Mr. Christopher Murphy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a), to leave out 'one year' and insert 'two years'.—[Mr. J. Enoch Powell.]

Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 136.

Division No. 213]
[1.12 am


AYES


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
McCusker.H.


Body,Richard
Molyneaux,James


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Budgen,Nick
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cranborne,Viscount
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Cryer,Bob
Stanbrook,Ivor


Dunlop,John
Walker, B. (Perth)


Farr,John
Winterton, Nicholas


Fraser, RtHon Sir Hugh



Gardiner,George(Reigate)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. William Ross and


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Christopher Murphy.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Lennox-Boyd,HonMark


Alton,David
Lester, Jim(Beeston)


Arnold,Tom
Loveridge,John


Atkins, RtHon H.(S'thorne)
Lyell, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
McQuade,John


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Marland,Paul


Benyon,Thomas(A 'don)
Marlow,Antony


Benyon,W. (Buckingham)
Mates, Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Mather,Carol


Best, Keith
Mawhinney,DrBrian


Biffen, RtHon John
Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin


Blackburn,John
Mayhew, Patrick


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Mellor,David


Boscawen,HonRobert
Meyer, SirAnthony


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Mills,lain(Meriden)


Bowden, Andrew
Miscampbell, Norman


Boyson,DrRhodes
Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)


Braine,SirBernard
Moate, Roger


Bright,Graham
Monro,SirHector


Brooke, Hon Peter
Montgomery,Fergus


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Needham, Richard


Bryan, Sir Paul
Newton,Tony


Butcher,John
Onslow,Cranley


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Paisley, Rev Ian


Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)
Parris, Matthew


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Patten, Jobn(Oxford)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Penhaligon, David


Chapman,Sydney
Percival,Sirlan


Clarke,Kenneth(Rushclifffe)
Prior, RtHon James


Cockeram,Eric
Rhodes James, Robert


Colvin, Michael
RhysWilliams,SirBrandon


Cope,John
Ridley,HonNicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
Ridsdale,SirJulian


Dover,Denshore
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Dunn, James A.
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Dykes, Hugh
Roper,John


Eggar,Tim
Rossi, Hugh


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Garel-Jones,Tristan
Scott,Nicholas


Goodhart,SirPhilip
Shaw, SirGiles (Pudsey)


Goodlad,Alastair
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Gow, lan
Shelton,William(Streatham)


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Grimond,RtHonJ.
Silvester,Fred


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Sims, Roger


Hampson,DrKeith
Smith,Tim (Beaconsfield)


Heddle,John
Speed, Keith


Henderson,Barry
Speller,Tony


Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)


Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Sproat,lain


Hooson,Tom
Squire,Robin


Howell, RtHonD.(G'ldf'd)
Stevens,Martin


Howells,Geraint
Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)


Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)
StradlingThomas.J.


Hurd, RtHon Douglas
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Jenkin, RtHon Patrick
Temple-Morris,Peter


Jopling, RtHon Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Kershaw,SirAnthony
Thompson,Donald


Lamont, Norman
Thornton,Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Latham,Michael
Trippier,David






van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wells,John (Maidstone)


Vaughan, DrGerard
Wickenden,Keith


Waddington,David
Wolfson,Mark


Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Wakeham,John



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Noes


Warren,Kenneth
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. David Hunt

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 5.

Division No. 214]
[1.23am


AYES


Alexander,Richard
Lennox-Boyd,HonMark


Alton, David
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Arnold,Tom
Loveridge,John


Atkins, RtHon H.(S'thorne)
Lyell,Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)
McQuade,John


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Marland,Paul


Benyon,Thomas (A'don)
Marlow,Antony


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Mates, Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Mather,Carol


Best, Keith
Mawhinney,DrBrian


Biffen, RtHon John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Mayhew, Patrick


Blackburn,John
Mellor,David


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boscawen,HonRobert
Mills,lain(Meriden)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wichW)
Miscampbell,Norman


Bowden,Andrew
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Boyson,Dr Rhodes
Moate, Roger


Braine,SirBernard
Molyneaux,James


Bright,Graham
Monro,SirHector


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Montgomery, Fergus


Bryan, Sir Paul
Murphy,Christopher


Butcher,John
Needham, Richard


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Newton,Tony


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Onslow,Cranley


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Paisley, Rev Ian


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Parris, Matthew


Chapman,Sydney
Patten,John(Oxford)


Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Penhaligon,David


Cockeram,Eric
Percival,Sir lan


Colvin, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Cope,John
Prior, Rt Hon James


Cranborne, Viscount
Rhodes James, Robert


Dorrell,Stephen
RhysWilliams,SirBrandon


Dover, Denshore
Ridley,HonNicholas


Dunlop,John
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Dunn, James A.
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Dykes, Hugh
Roper,John


Eggar,Tim
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Rossi, Hugh


Garel-Jones,Tristan
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Goodhart,SirPhilip
Scott,Nicholas


Goodlad,Alastair
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gow, lan
Shaw,SirMichael(Scarborough)


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)



Grimond, RtHonJ.
Shelton,William(Streatham)


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Hamilton, HonA.
Silvester, Fred


Hampson,DrKeith
Sims, Roger


Heddle,John
Smith,Tim (Beaconsfield)


Henderson, Barry
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Speed, Keith


Holland,Philip(Carlton)
Speller, Tony


Hooson, Tom
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howell, RtHon D.(G'ldf'd)
Sproat,lain


Howells,Geraint
Squire,Robin


Hunt,John (Ravensbourne)
Stanbrook,Ivor


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stevens, Martin


Jenkin, RtHon Patrick
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Jopling,RtHonMichael
Stradling Thomas,J.


Kershaw,SirAnthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)


Lamont,Norman
Temple-Morris,Peter


Lang, lan
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Latham,Michael
Thompson,Donald





Thornton, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Townsend, Cyril D, (B 'heath)
Wells,John(Maidstone)


Trippier,David
Wickenden,Keith


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wolfson,Mark


Vaughan,DrGerard
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Waddington, David



Wainwright,R.(ColneV)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wakeham,John
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Waller, Gary
Mr. David Hunt.


Warren,Kenneth





NOES


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)



Budgen,Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Cryer,Bob
Mr. Nicholas Winterton and


Farr,John
Mr. Richard Body.


Lawrence, lvan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 68, in page 7, line 15, leave out from 'force,' to end of line.17.—[Mr. J. Enoch Powell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 133.

Division No. 215]
[1.34 am


AYES


Amery, RtHon Julian
Lawrence,lvan


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Body, Richard
Molyneaux,James


Brown,Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (SDown)


Budgen,Nick
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Cranborne, Viscount
Stanbrook,Ivor


Cryer,Bob
Walker, B. (Perth)


Dunlop,John
Winterton, Nicholas


Farr,John



Fraser, RtHon Sir Hugh
Tellers for the Ayes:


Gardiner,George(Reigate)
Mr. William Ross and


Goodhart,SirPhilip
Mr. Christopher Murphy.


Gorst,John





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Alton,David
Eggar,Tim


Arnold,Tom
Goodlad,Alastair


Atkins, RtHon H.(S'thorne)
Gow, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)
Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Grimond, RtHonJ.


Benyon,Thomas(A'don)
Gummer,JohnSelwyn


Benyon,W. (Buckingham)
Hamilton, Hon A.


Berry, HonAnthony
Hampson,DrKeith


Best, Keith
Heddle,John


Biffen, RtHon John
Henderson,Barry


Blackburn,John
Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Holland,Philip(Carlton)


Boscawen,HonRobert
Hooson,Tom


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Bowden,Andrew
Howells,Geraint


Boyson,DrRhodes
Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)


Braine,SirBernard
Hurd, RtHon Douglas


Bright,Graham
Jenkin, RtHon Patrick


Brooke, Hon Peter
Jopling,RtHonMichael


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Kershaw, SirAnthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lamont,Norman


Butcher,John
Lang, Ian


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Latham,Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lennox-Boyd,HonMark


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Loveridge,John


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Lyell, Nicholas


Chapman,Sydney
McQuade,John


Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Marland,Paul


Cockeram,Eric
Marlow,Antony


Colvin,Michael
Mates,Michael


Cope,John
Mather,Carol


Dorrell,Stephen
Mawhinney,DrBrian


Dover, Denshore
Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin


Dunn, James A.
Mayhew, Patrick






Mellor, David
Sims, Roger


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Speed, Keith


Miscampbell, Norman
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moate, Roger
Sproat, lain


Monro, Sir Hector
Squire, Robin


Montgomery, Fergus
Stevens, Martin


Needham, Richard
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Newton, Tony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Paisley, Rev Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Parris, Matthew
Thompson, Donald


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thornton, Malcolm


Penhaligon, David
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Percival, Sir Ian
Trippier, David


Prior, Rt Hon James
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rhodes James, Robert
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wakeham, John


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Waller, Gary


Roper, John
Warren, Kenneth


Rossi, Hugh
Wells, Bowen


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Scott, Nicholas
Wickenden, Keith


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarborough)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Silvester, Fred
Mr. David Hunt.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Stanbrook: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I do not move the motion because the amount of progress that we have made is great, although it could be said that having passed a clause and a substantial part of a schedule is no mean progress today. Moreover, I do not move the motion because of the physical hardships which we cause hon. Members by debating throughout the night, as we have done during the past two weeks. That is a good enough reason for us to adjourn and proceed with the debate another time.
My main ground for requesting that we adjourn is to ensure that we devote proper time to an important constitutional matter. With some legislation it is possible for hon. Members to be present without having their minds fully engaged in the subject. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) will allow me, as I was saying, there are some subjects—[Interruption]—which come before the House which we all accept do not require a high intellectual application, and if they have to go overnight they are carried on by people who at least know what they are talking about.
However, this is a constitutional Bill which affects the fundamental rights of a part of the population of the United Kingdom which deserves the highest consideration and study. I put it in that way because I was, to my regret, one of the Members who, 10 years ago, voted for the legislation which suspended Stormont, the devolved Government of Northern Ireland of those days. In those days I knew very little about Northern Ireland and I was one of those Members—[Interruption.] I wonder whether it is possible for a Back Bencher to name an hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps I could get on with my speech without interruption from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.
In 1972, most of us knew very little about Northern Ireland, most of us in the Conservative Party accepted what we were told by our leaders, and most of us trooped through the Lobbies, just as more than 100 Members have trooped through the Lobbies during the past few weeks, without knowing much about the merits of the question and without even listening to the arguments. That is precisely what is happening now, and that includes people like my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.
I confess that since I have been a Member of the House I have become a sadder and a wiser man—and more knowledgeable, I hope. I have at least some modesty, which my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham appears to lack.

Mr. Budgen: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his courtesy which stands out remarkably against the discourtesy of the hon. Gentleman whom I hope he will still regard as our hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)?

Mr. Stanbrook: That seems to have taken the wind out of the sails of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.
Those who know something about this subject and who stay in the Chamber to listen to the arguments realise its constitutional importance. The argument is all against the Government. The argument is convincing to the average observer who is not predisposed to vote according to the way in which the party Whip decrees. Once one knows how important the issues are, and once one listens to the arguments, one appreciates how important it is to follow the merits of the case and to vote accordingly. Unfortunately, that process attracts the support of perhaps only a score of Members on the Conservative Benches. I do not give up hope that the other Members who troop through the Lobbies without listening to the arguments and without realising what they are doing would perhaps change their views if they really considered the arguments. [Interruption.] It has been suggested that I am being patronising. That comes from someone who does what he is told on almost every occasion. I have reason to cherish the independence that our system gives us. I would rather not be in the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas) is in today and has been in for virtually all his parliamentary career. I would rather have a voice that I could raise in the interests of my constituents and be able to say what I believe is right for the country.
I submit this is an argument which must be carefully listened to and which deserves time and study. I understand that the Government have some time available in their legislative programme between now and the end of the Session. Therefore, it is possible for us to retire at a reasonable hour of the night so that we may return refreshed tomorrow. I do not suggest that we are doing so well in getting through the Bill that the Government can afford to adjourn the debate. That would be an insincere argument. My argument is that the importance of the subject deserves not only more time but more time during the day when Members are able to give their fullest concentration to the matter.

Mr. Amery: The supreme irony of the way in which the debate is being conducted is inherent in the Bill before the Committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seeks to produce a position in which the majority and the minority in the Province are equated. But in


Committee the rights and the views of the minority are to be swept aside. The mechanics of parliamentary procedure are to be used to squash those who dissent from the Government's views and the influence of the Patronage Secretary is to be brought to bear in support of the majority and against the minority. It is an intolerable situation.
We have had closures moved after an hour and a half's debate when there were still four or five hon. Members who wanted to speak. I must ask for the support of the Chair in defence of the rights of the minority. We cannot go on like this on an issue of major constitutional importance. It is not as though we were trying to railroad through a transport Bill. This Bill touches the unity of the kingdom. That unity is at stake in the Bill and there must be opportunity for all hon. Members to express their views.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: At about this time of night, when the motion that you, Mr. Armstrong, have just proposed to the Committee had been moved it would be normal for the right hon. Member leading for the Opposition—if there were one—to offer his counsel to the Committee and the Government. Drawing on considerable reserves of experience, with the insight sharpened by lack of office and a desire, nevertheless, to be helpful to the Committee and the Government, the right hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box from the Secretary of State—it is perhaps significant and symbolic that there is no right hon. Gentleman in precisely that position at the moment—would undoubtedly rise to give his advice to the Committee and to support the motion.
I am sorry that we have to debate the motion in the absence of one of the essential constituents of a proper parliamentary debate and of the House when it goes properly about its business, namely, the Opposition in an organised and co-ordinated form. Perhaps we shall live to see the day when once again the Labour Party can perform the role of an Opposition in the House and in the country, but until that day we have to fill its place as best we can in these debates where the function of the House depends on genuine debate and dialectic.
This is approximately the time of night when the House enters one of its predictable phases. It is at about 2 am, give or take a quarter of an hour, that the House enters upon a phase of hilarity—when the slightest witticism, or a remark which would not be recognised as even an attempted witticism at any other time in the 24 hours, is sufficient to throw most hon. Members who are still awake into a paroxysm of merriment.
On form, in accordance with observed custom, that phase normally lasts for about two hours before the merriment dies out and is succeeded by the next phase, also lasting for two or three hours, of somnolence, boredom and a generally dreary aspect like that of the gods of Valhalla after the goddess of youth had been removed from them.
The point towards which I am working my way is that experience shows, without variation, that little or no useful business is transacted during either the two hours of unrestrained hilarity or the subsequent two hours of dreary and somnolent boredom. The Government, attempting to carry on, with the notion that they will make progress, are invariably obliged to admit when they look back over the four hours preceding 6 am that such minimal progress as has been made in Committee or in the House in those successive conditions has not been worth the candle that

has been burnt by hon. Members in reserve in other parts of the Palace of Westminster or by those whose attention and energies have been put under strain in maintaining the debate. It invariably is so, and so it will be should the Government unwisely attempt to proceed much further this morning.
2 am
There is another reason for this experience that is quite separate from the chemical behaviour of the human physiology under the stresses to which an all-night sitting or a late-night sitting subjects it. All Bills—this measure is no exception—have a shape of their own. It is a shape which largely dictates the manner, stages and timing of the debate. When the House of Commons, the Government and the Whips attempt to push on from one completed phase in the consideration of the Bill and imagine that they will gain by opening a different one, they are equally uniformly disappointed.
The Bill falls into two main parts. I am not saying that there are only two parts but there are two main and distinguishable parts which are relevant for the purposes of my argument. The first part, which comprises the first two clauses, together with the schedule which has not yet been agreed to, is concerned with devolution in the ordinary sense of the term. That section has now been debated in Committee during four sittings. The implications of the two clauses will cast their shadow forward into the remainder of the Bill, but broadly speaking the general subject of administrative and legislative devolution to be established in Northern Ireland by way of an elected Assembly is contained in the first two clauses and has been quite fully debated though not perhaps as fully as it deserved.

Mr. Amery: It has not been debated as fully as it should have been.

Mr. Powell: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The debate has not been to the satisfaction of all hon. Members. Indeed, I think that it has brought deep disappointment to those who believed that a return to the devolution which the Province of Ulster knew over two generations could be achieved through the machinery of the Bill. Whatever hopes of that were entertained have been first disturbed and then shattered by the debates that have taken place over the four days. We are all—not only the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)—wiser and in some instances sadder on the subject of devolution than when we set to work to consider the Bill in Committee.

Mr. Amery: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the intellectual argument in favour of the Bill has been shattered by the speeches that have been made in all quarters of the Committee, chat this must be well understood in the Province and elsewhere, and that it is only the mechanics of Government that have been able to advance the Government's case?

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman is right. It is well understood that the message has been received, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) informed the Committee earlier, and understood in the Province in which it is sought to impose the Bill against the wish of nearly all the informed political expressions and parties of the Province.
Those who have assisted in the debates in Committee have witnessed the destructive process to which the right


hon. Gentleman referred. However, the larger numbers are of those who are not in the Chamber. One of the marginal benefits of a long or late sitting is that sometimes the desire for entertainment—perhaps an injudicious attempt to satisfy the desire for entertainment—leads hon. Members who would not otherwise apply their minds to the subject to drop casually into the Chamber, and then, arrested by the eloquence, novelty or form of presentation of the hon. Members who happen to be speaking, they remain and gradually say to themselves "The Government are wrong." "My right hon. Friend", they say to themselves, "no doubt introduced this Bill with the best of intentions, but, after listening to the debate, it is quite clear that he is getting the worst of the argument." To that extent, as one grinds on through the hours, one draws into the parliamentary mill, the dialectic mill, certain grist from outside the regular attenders of the Chamber. That is something gained. It is to be chalked up as a plus that the process of mutual education that the relatively closed circle carries out in the debate extends itself, by a type of parliamentary osmosis, into the rest of the membership of the House.
Broadly speaking, there is the House of debates and the House that is not there. The House that is not there is the House that tends to decide the Divisions. Until the Government become aware that victories that are won by those who do not understand over those who do understand what is happening are victories that prove to be Pyrrhic or worse.

Mr. Amery: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he recall and agree that the defeat of the devolution proposals for Scotland and Wales arose when the House understood that the intellectual argument that the Government advanced had been shattered?

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It took two Sessions to do it but, by the end of those two Sessions, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the fallacies upon which that legislation was founded had been extracted from the minds of most hon. Members. Even those who supported the Bill at the end were saying openly that they regarded the foundations of the Bill as unsound and that they were voting for it only so that it could be destroyed, as they rightly anticipated, in a referendum.
The first natural section, the one that deals with devolution in the ordinary sense of the term, lies almost entirely behind us now. With clauses 3 and 4, we are about to enter symmetrically upon the other half of the diptych, upon that portion of the Bill that deals with a talking shop. "The Assembly as talking shop" might be the somewhat unkind but accurate rubric cross-head over clauses 3 and 4.
Just as large constitutional issues will be raised when we come to consider clauses 3 and 4—"the Assembly as talking shop"—as we had to deal with when we considered the Assembly as the matrix of a power-sharing devolved Government and legislature. There lies before us a largely new field, a natural point of separation and a new beginning of a different series of arguments.
Experience shows that if Governments are content to handle a Bill in accordance with its natural subdivisions, they make better progress with it and with less friction and dissatisfaction being created in their own party and in the

House than when they endeavour to ride over the natural boundaries and to drive the House on from one topic, with which it has dealt, to another, with which it is as yet unprepared, intellectually and emotionally, to deal.
Those two mistakes the right hon. Gentleman will make unless he is prepared to accept the proposition moved by the hon. Member for Orpington. The right hon. Gentleman is a Privy Councillor of considerable experience. He does not yet bear the weight of years of some of us who bring our ageing and weary limbs into the service of the Committee. Nevertheless, although he has not attained the psalmist's limit of the natural period of human life, he has considerable parliamentary experience. Therefore, he knows that by insisting on sitting for another four hours, as I hope that he will not, he will gain very little indeed. There will be no satisfactory debating, little progress and a discontented and dissatisfied working Committee at the end of that time. When he agrees later to the motion, he will look back and wish, as Ministers in a similar position have wished over the years, that he had had the sense to go to bed at the right time.
I wish to make a proposition to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. I notice the expression of natural surprise, doubt, suspicion and cunning that crosses his visage as I say that. He has already been sufficiently puzzled by the series of compliments that I have been unable to refrain from paying to him in the course of these debates to regard with some apprehension even the suggestions that with the warmest good will, which I indeed entertain, I tender to him.
Bearing up against that discouragement and discountenancing, however, I venture to offer the right hon. Gentleman what I think is a practical suggestion which I hope will commend itself to him. It arises out of the argument that I have made as to the natural shape and subdivision of the Bill.
Schedule 1, whether or not we should have taken it out of order and after clause 2—a matter that it is now too late to discuss—undoubtedly coheres with clauses 1 and 2 and is ancillary to them. When we have cleared schedule 1, however, we shall certainly have left one territory and entered upon another.
The proposition that I make to the right hon. Gentleman is not merely the rational way in which to handle the Bill but one by which he will lose nothing in progress and gain much in cheerfulness and good will. It is that he should indicate to the Committee that he would himself propose when we have disposed of schedule 1 that the Chairman should report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
My advice is therefore not exactly the same as that of the hon. Member for Orpington. The hon. Gentleman perhaps wished to test the ground in an exploratory move, although I do not say that it was undertaken prematurely, as it is often useful for a Minister to be able to give a little advance notice of his intentions before the moment comes to put them into effect. Slightly modifying the hon. Gentleman's proposal, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be in the interests of everyone, including himself, if he now indicated that when we have debated schedule 1, if there is to be debate, and agreed to it we should rest satisfied, having dealt with the portion of the Bill concerned with devolution, and report progress.
We may then open the major debates on clause 3 with a fresh mind, having had the opportunity, albeit brief, to reflect upon the points that have arisen in the past four days, as a new topic, which it distinctly is. After all, it


would theoretically have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman—I shall not do it by way of demonstration—to have torn the Bill in half and either half, with a little finnicking with the schedules, would have been a self-contained Bill. For the Assembly to put forward proposals for power-sharing devolution, subject to the right hon. Gentleman's views of necessary widespread consent throughout the community, would have been a self-contained, self-sustained proposition.
2.15 am
Alternatively, the proposals in clauses 3 and 4, with their appurtenances, to have a talking shop and set up in Northern Ireland an elected Assembly without the responsibilities or relationships between those elected and the electors which we take for granted, and to hope that it could be a stabilising, useful and scrutinising feature of the constitution of the Province, would, again, have been a self-contained coherent whole. I am glad to see that some thought on this subject may be taking place, and I hope that it will he fruitful.
This is the stage where we pass from what is essentially one Bill to another. The right hon. Gentleman should frankly recognise that and the fact that if we continue to sit for the next two or four hours what we do will be negligible and will be dust and ashes to us afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman should help the Committee by telling it that it is his intention to accept the motion.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I do not intend to follow the arguments of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) relating to the mental and physical mechanics and behaviour of mankind after midnight and in the early hours of the morning, although I admit from my limited experience during my 11 years in the House that his summary is accurate.
I support the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I, too, believe that the Government will be doing a disservice to the Committee if they proceed further tonight. Having attended most of today's sitting, I find it extraordinary that arguments against the Bill have been put time and again from both sides of the Committee without adequate answers from the Government. There has been absolutely no support for the Government from any of the hon. Members who have spoken in the debates.
As Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Weatherill, you must inevitably safeguard the interests of the minority. Surely the minority view in the Committee is the majority view in debate. When the Patronage Secretary enters the Chamber, as he does on average about once every two, two and a half or three hours to move the closure, it is generally granted. I do not argue with the Chair's decision but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) reminds me that there has not been an occasion when the move to closure the debate has not been granted, despite the fact that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have sought to contribute to the debate. It will be a sad reflection of the working of the Committee if such a situation is allowed to prevail.
All the arguments are against the Bill. Very few, if any, contributions have been made in support of the underlying principle. I believe that the Committee is being ill served in that the answers we have received from the Government—for which you, Mr. Weatherill, are not responsible—do not adequately answer the debate. In

addition, outside the Committee, particularly in Ulster, what is happening here establishes a bad reputation for the House of Commons and the Committee.
Let us take into account the view of someone who comes from the Province, He is Mr. Boyd Black, who lectures on economics at Queen's university. This learned gentleman is deeply concerned about the fact that the economy of the Province has already suffered severely from a series of disastrous initiatives taken by successive Secretaries of State.
I remind the Committee of Sunningdale, the constitutional convention, the "Atkins" conference el al. All those things have been very bad for Ulster. In supporting my hon. Friend's motion, let me quote Mr. Black precisely—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into the merits of the Bill. We are debating whether we should report progress.

Mr. Winterton: I am seeking to support my views in support of my hon. Friend. By using certain quotations, it may help the Committee to decide whether we should report progress. I also hope that it will indicate to the Government why many Conservative Members believe that it would be helpful if we did report progress.
The Government and the Treasury Bench would have an opportunity to consider this legislation which has caused so much concern among Conservative Members. I am particularly concerned about minorities. Let me quote precisely what Mr. Boyd Black says:
If Mr. Prior proceeds with his proposed rolling folly, the instability and bad publicity which will ensue will be another nail in the investment coffin. If he genuinely wants to help the Northern Ireland economy, he should get on with governing it along the same lines as Scotland and Wales.
I am sure, Mr. Weatherill, that you will accept that we are debating a measure of considerable constitutional importance, as has been highlighted in two brilliant speeches from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on his seventieth birthday. I am sure that he will make a number of other excellent speeches demolishing this piece of legislation. Those of us who seek to report progress do so because we are concerned that at this time of night the Committee cannot give close scrutiny to an important piece of constitutional legislation.
We are not getting the support for this Government legislation that should be forthcoming if, in fact, there is any meaningful support for it in the Committee.

Mr. Amery: Or anywhere.

Mr. Winterton: Or anywhere for that matter, as my right hon. Friend says.
It is easy for the Patronage Secretary to rally the payroll vote and to get it tramping through the Lobby at the end of a debate which has been closed by his own action, but where are those learned and able people during our debates on a measure that will affect an important part of the United Kingdom? They are not here. Those hon. Members present are deeply concerned about the future of Ulster as part of the United Kingdom. They have participated in the debates late at night.
I agree that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have been steadfast in their presence on the Front Bench, but they are ill supported by the Government as a whole in debate. If there is such support for the Bill, where are its supporters when it comes to debating the nitty gritty?

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend seems to be concentrating too much upon the Ulster aspect and perhaps too little upon the consequences for the unity of the kingdom.

Mr. Winterton: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says. You would quickly bring me to order, Mr. Weatherill, if I tried to go into the merits—there are none—of the Bill. They will be considered by amendment and at later stages. Tonight I am doing my best to support my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, who, in a most reasonable, responsible and constructive way, moved the motion that you put to the Committee suggesting to my right hon. Friend that at 25 minutes past two o'clock it would be appropriate to draw stumps. Then the Government could give proper consideration—not some of the ill-considered answers or lack of answers that we have had in our debates today—to the articulate arguments that have been advanced, and perhaps return to the Committee ready to respond more positively and constructively by accepting some of the improving amendments that we wish to move to make this monstrous legislation less monstrous in its effect upon Northern Ireland and the people of that embattled part of the United Kingdom and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, to consider its implications for the rest of the United Kingdom.
With those very few words I fully support the motion that has been put to you, Mr. Weatherill, and I hope that my right hon. Friend and his Ministers will respond constructively and positively to the request.

Mr. Budgen: We all know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his generosity of spirit. In many cases a generous gesture is more important in politics than a logical argument. It would be useful to my right hon. Friend if tonight we were immediately to make a generous gesture.
We in the Tory Party are a coalition divided in many different ways. The great division is between those who believe that immediate resort to the statute book is the answer to all problems and those who take the more pessimistic view that in some instances problems are insoluble and must be lived with but that in other instances the Government can have only the most minimal influence upon those problems.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is an important proponent of the optimists in the Conservative Party. He believes in legislation. In introducing this legislation, he reminds us of the hopeful optimism that those of us who were not Members of the House between 1970 and 1974 saw with such interest. This legislation is part of the move that we saw—

The Chairman: Order. Again we are getting on to the merits of the legislation. The hon. Gentleman must argue why the Chairman should report progress.

Mr. Budgen: Because, Mr. Weatherill, the Tory Party is a coalition. To keep the coalition together, it is necessary on occasions for one group of the coalition to make a generous gesture towards the other.
I wish to make it plain, for I often belong to a different part of the coalition from my right hon. Friend, that I do not wish ever to see him driven from the coalition, and I am sure that he would not wish to see any of us driven from the coalition.

Mr. Prior: I should like to make a generous gesture to my hon. Friend. The last time that I sat here conducting a Bill through the House and he was sitting on the Back Benches attacking me, it was for the opposite reason to that which he has just given. He complained at that time that I was putting too little legislation through the House when he wanted more. Tonight he is accusing me of the opposite.

Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. One of the essential reasons why all of us in the Tory Party ought to be humble and friendly towards others who are temporarily in a different position in the coalition is the recognition that at one moment we ally ourselves with one part of the cabal and the next moment we ally ourselves with another part.
There are none of us who are totally of a piece, and there are none of us who are consistent. All of us are dependent upon the good will of the remainder of our friends. When I see, as I and many hon. Members did a few moments ago, friend snapping at friend and one of my hon. Friends laughing in an almost manic way at the reasonable and courteous submissions made by another hon. Friend, it seems to me that the coalition is wearing a bit thin and that my right hon. Friend should want to make a gesture towards the cohesion of the coalition, recognising, as he does, the need to keep it intact and the need occasionally to make a generous gesture. Tonight is an occasion when a generous gesture would not come amiss.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the beneficiary of the works of the coalition and of the excellent work being done by the Patronage Secretary in curtailing debate. He is also the beneficiary of those who are saying that the Bill is the latest of many of those great reforming pieces of legislation such as the reform of local government, or that excellent reform of the Health Service, or of the water authorities, of which all of us are so proud.
My right hon. Friend will now be able to make a gesture to the pessimists in the Tory Party, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), of whom, when his memorial to many years' service in the House is written, it will be asked "What did he do? What good did he do? What great piece of legislation enshrines his memory after so many hours of work, such brilliant and passionate oratory in the House?" There will be no legislation, but those who speak after him will be able to answer "He stopped an awful lot of harm being done. It was he who demolished so many specious arguments; it was he who filibustered"—[HON. MEMBERS: No.] Not filibustered, although the Whips' Office would say so. However, it will be said that it was my right hon. Friend who demolished much rubbish. There is something to be said for those in a coalition who exist for the demolition of rubbish.
There are those who, on the other hand, exist for the promulgation of progressive, on-going legislation and see that for every problem there is a solution and that for every problem there ought to be an Act of Parliament, preferably pushed through under a guillotine. They are a significant and important part of our coalition. As the Secretary of State says, there is no doubt that many of us who are in opposition to him on that point tonight will join him in other instances in wanting legislation.
We change within the coalition. Let us recognise that the coalition needs a gesture of generosity and an example of that warmth and vigour that we know and like in the Secretary of State, that warm temper that last week caused him to say that he was getting pretty worked up. How much we sympathised with him when he said that. He had much to suffer. We have much to suffer tonight. We are becoming tired. We need a gesture of reconciliation. Let the Secretary of State make that gesture. Let us return tomorrow in a spirit of good will with the acerbity gone, with our capacity for detailed analysis renewed and the knowledge that our frail, often difficult, coalition has been renewed in a spirit of fellowship.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) may be disappointed, but I suspect not surprised, when I say that I cannot respond positively to his stirring and completely sincere appeal for a gesture. It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) who talked of the supreme irony in our affairs. If there is a supreme irony, it is that we are discussing the motion that we should report progress. Since the Committee began to sit—bearing in mind the amount of time we have spent—we have made precious little progress.
It is true, as was pointed out at the Ten o'clock Rule Division, that those who do not wish to continue to take part and who may, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, be too tired, or those who may suffer from the various cyclical attitudes outlined by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), are free to depart and leave the work to those who are less tired and still have "the stomachs to eat"—I quote again from Henry V.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was needlessly offensive to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas), the Deputy Chief Whip, and about the work of the Whips' Office that we know is so essential to the good operation of the House. I hope that on consideration my hon. Friend will feel it proper to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth for those remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that because the Bill was a constitutional one it was inappropriate to deal with it in the middle of the night. My experience in the House is comparatively short compared with some right hon. and hon. Members but I remember constitutional measures dealing with the reform of the House of Lords, our membership of the European Economic Community, and the devolution Bills for Scotland and Wales that were not noticeably un-nocturnal in their consideration. I believe that the benefits of belonging to the European Economic Community are clear.
It was suggested that the Government were losing the argument. I do my best, and have always done my best during my 16 years in the House, to see the other point of view. I have listened to virtually the whole of the arguments put forward during the Committee stage, but I am bound to say—in no arrogant way-that I believe that the Government's argument has carried the day, although more of the time has been taken up by those who have opposed the Government's case. We have seen a concerted effort to delay the legislation. I do not object to that. It is

right for hon. Members who oppose the Bill to do that, but let us recognise what has been going on, take our tongues out of our cheeks and recognise reality.
In a short, sharp burst of bowling from the pavilion end, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion took a bit of nerve to talk about squashing debate. Those who have listened to the debates cannot believe that debate has been squashed. My right hon. Friend could have fooled me when he made that claim.

Mr. Molyneaux: I should like to take the Under-Secretary back to the constructive and useful debate yesterday afternoon. Does he think that that was a waste of time? Does he agree that it produced much information and gave the Secretary of State food for thought? I do not think that the Secretary of State is satisfied that enough time has been devoted to the unresolved problem of cross-community consent which worried the Committee so much and which will continue to worry us. It is a key matter. Will the Under-Secretary be generous and admit that if that debate had not been closured prematurely, it could have resolved many of the problems which will continue to create trouble for the Bill?

Mr. Scott: I do not wish to appear even more churlish, but I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the debate. It might, at best, approach the description of the curate's egg in that it was good in certain parts, but I do not think that it merits the praise lavished upon it by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux).
Although there was a superficial attraction in the generous offer by the right hon. Member for Down, South, I do not see any difficulty about the Committee being able to progress and deal with schedule 1 now. It would not require a great intellectual leap for us then to move on to the rest of the Bill.
Hon. Members who have been in the House for a while know the ploys and arguments used when there is a concerted effort to delay a Bill. One was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). He knows that when full and proper consideration of a Bill is urged by a small group of hon. Members, part of the game is to seek to provoke supporters, of the Bill to aid them in their efforts to delay the measure. Hon. Members who support the Bill are too wise to be lured in that direction. They prefer silence and to make their views clear when they are called upon for their support in the Lobby, as they are at regular intervals. This is an absurdly early hour for us to report progress. We should see how we get on.

Mr. Jopling: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 123, Noes 23.

Division No.216]
[2.42 am


AYES


Alexander,Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold,Tom
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Atkins, RtHonH.(S'thorne)
Bowden,Andrew


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Boyson,Dr Rhodes


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Braine,SirBernard


Benyon,Thomas(A'don)
Bright,Graham


Benyon, W.(Buckingham)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Berry, Hon Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne,John


Best, Keith
Bryan, SirPaul


Biffen,Rt Hon John
Butcher,John


Blackburn,John
Cadbury,Jocelyn


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Campbell-Savours,Dale






Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Percival,Sir Ian


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Rathbone,Tim


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Rhodes James, Robert


Chapman,Sydney
RhysWilliams,SirBrandon


Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Ridley,HonNicholas


Cockeram,Eric
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Colvln,Michael
Roper,John


Cope,John
Rossi,Hugh


Dorrell,Stephen
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Dover,Denshore
Scott,Nicholas


Dunn, James A.
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Eggar,Tim
Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)


Goodlad,Alastair
Shelton,William(Streatham)


Gow, Ian
Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)


Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Silvester,Fred


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, Hon A.
Smith,Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hampaon,Dr Keith
Speed, Keith


Heddle,John
Speller,Tony


Henderson,Barry
Spicer, Michael (S Wores)


Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Sproat,lain


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Squire,Robin


Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)
Stevens,Martin


Hurd,Rt Hon Douglas
Stewart,A.(ERenfrewshire)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stewart,Ian(Hitchin)


Jopllng.RtHon Michael
Stradling Thomas,J.


Kershaw,SirAnthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lang, Ian
Temple-Morris,Peter


Latham,Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lennox-Boyd,HonMark
Thompson,Donald


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Thornton,Malcolm


Loveridge,John
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Lyell,Nicholas
Trippier,David


Marland,Paul
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Marlow,Antony
Vaughan,Dr Gerard


Mates,Michael
Viggers, Peter


Mather,Carol
Waddington,David


Mawhinney,DrBrian
Wainwright,R.(ColneV)


Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin
Wakeham,John


Mayhew,Patrick
Waller, Gary


Mellor,David
Warren,Kenneth


Mills,Iain(Meriden)
Wells, Bowen


Miscampbell, Norman
Wells,John(Maidstone)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wickenden,Keith


Monro,SirHector
Wolfson,Mark


Montgomery,Fergus
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


Needham,Richard



Newton,Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Parris,Matthew
Mr. David Hunt.


Patten, John (Oxford)





NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
McQuade,John


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Molyneaux,James


Body,Richard
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Budgen,Nick
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Cranborne,Viscount
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Cryer,Bob
Stanbrook,Ivor


Dunlop,John
Walker, B. (Perth)


Farr,John
Winterton,Nicholas


Gardiner,George(Reigate)



Goodhart,SirPhilip
Tellers for the Noes:


Gorst,John
Mr. Christopher Murphy and


Lawrence,Ivan
Mr. William Ross.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 24,Noes 124.

Division No. 217]
[2.54 am


AYES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brown,Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Budgen,Nick


Body,Richard
Cranborne,Viscount





Cryer,Bob
Paisley, Rev Ian


Dunlop,John
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Farr,John
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Gardiner,George(Reigate)
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Goodhart,SirPhilip
Stanbrook,lvor


Gorst,John
Walker, B. (Perth)


Lawrence, Ivan
Winterton,Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)



McQuade,John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moate,Roger
Mr. Christopher Murphy and


Molyneaux,James
Mr. William Ross.




NOES


Alexander,Richard
Mayhew,Patrick


Arnold,Tom
Mellor,David


Atkins, RtHonH.(S'thorne)
Mills,Iain(Meriden)


Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)
Miscampbell,Norman


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Benyon,Thomas(A'don)
Monro,SirHector


Benyon,W. (Buckingham)
Montgomery,Fergus


Berry, Hon Anthony
Needham,Richard


Best, Keith
Newton,Tony


Biffen,Rt Hon John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Blackburn,John
Parris,Matthew


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Patten,John(Oxford)


Boscawen,HonRobert
Percival,Sir lan


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bowden,Andrew
Rathbone,Tim


Boyson,Dr Rhodes
Rhodes James, Robert


Braine,SirBernard
RhysWilliams,SirBrandon


Bright,Graham
Ridley,HonNicholas


Brooke, Hon Peter
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Roper,John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Rossi, Hugh


Butcher,john
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Sainsbury,HonTimothy


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Scott,Nicholas


Carlisle,John(Luton West)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)
Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Shelton,William(Streatham)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)


Chapman,Sydney
Silvester,Fred


Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Sims, Roger


Cockeram,Eric
Smith,Tim (Beaconsfield)


Colvin, Michael
Speed, Keith


Cope,John
Speller,Tony


Dorrell,Stephen
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Dover,Denshore
Sproat,Iain


Dunn, James A.
Squire,Robin


Eggar,Tim
Stevens,Martin


Goodlad,Alastair
Stewart,A.(ERenfrewshire)


Gow, lan
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)
Stradling Thomas,J.


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Temple-Morris,Peter


Hampson,DrKeith
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Heddle,John
Thompson,Donald


Henderson,Barry
Thornton,Malcolm


Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Townsend,CyrilD,(B'heath)


Holland,Philip(Carlton)
Trippier,David


Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Hurd,Rt Hon Douglas
Vaughan,Dr Gerard


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Jopling,RtHonMichael
Waddington,David


Kershaw,SirAnthony
Wainwright,R.(ColneV)


Lang,Ian
Wakeham,John


Latham,Michael
Waller, Gary


Lennox-Boyd,HonMark
Warren,Kenneth


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Wells,Bowen


Loveridge,John
Wells,John(Maidstone)


Lyell,Nicholas
Wickenden,Keith


Marland,Paul
Wolfson,Mark


Marlow,Antony
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Mates,Michael



Mather,Carol
Tellers for the Noes:


Mawhinney,DrBrian
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin
Mr. David Hunt.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the first schedule to the Bill.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is an important schedule which raises one of the important constitutional issues involved in the devolution proposals. I should like to ask certain questions on the construction of the schedule and then address myself to what I conceive to be the principal constitutional issue that the schedule raises.
My first question of construction relates to paragraph 6(2), which states:
For the purposes of this paragraph an instrument shall not be treated as not relating to the specified matters by reason only that it requires the consent or concurrence of a Northern Ireland department other than the specified department or that it contains provisions creating offences or imposing penalties.
I hope that I am employing the sort of clarity of diction that is particularly helpful to the Committee at this time of the morning, but the words are not mine; they are those of the draftsman.
Even at 3 am, I can see that it could be argued that if a devolved Department had to deal with a subject that required the co-operation, even marginally, of another Department, that might be treated as ruling out of account as specified matters, as defined in paragraph 3 of the schedule, the subject matter of the devolved Department.
However, I am not so sure that I understand the reference to
provisions creating offences or imposing penalties".
It is a common observation that legislation creating offences or imposing penalties can come from most of the Departments of State. Indeed, there can be few Departments that do not have such legislation to their credit or discredit. I fail to understand how that should be regarded as presumptively, apart from paragraph 6, taking those matters outside the scope of a Department. Is it the conception that the business of creating offences or imposing penalties is a departmental matter on its own, or have I failed to observe that it is in some way a reserved matter? I hope that I have sufficiently succeeded in conveying my incomprehension to the Minister for him to be able to eliminate it when he replies.
The second matter that I wish to raise is that of the appointments to headship of Departments and of assistants to heads of Departments under paragraph 5. This is a partial application of section 8 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Am I correct in assuming that section 8(8) of the 1973 Act applies and that, therefore, all these appointments are appointments to hold office at Her Majesty's pleasure? I think that they probably are and I think that that is the correct construction. If I am wrong, I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell me now. I ask him to do so because otherwise I shall continue upon the assumption that that is the correct construction.

Mr. John Patten: The construction that the right hon. Gentleman has put on the paragraph is precise and exact.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged. Therefore, section 8(8) of the 1973 Act applies to the appointments under paragraph 5.
The constitutional issue that is raised by part II of the schedule is the constitution and nature of an Executive, some of whose members are responsible to the Assembly, being the heads of devolved Departments by reason of an order made under section 2(1)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, whereas others are appointments made as members of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. As they are appointed at Her Majesty's

pleasure, I suppose that the view could be taken technically that the heads of devolved Departments are members of Her Majesty's Government and hold their appointments in exactly the same way and at the same risk, so to speak, as members of Her Majesty's Government do under our constitutional arrangements. I take it that this applies both to the heads of Departments—as it were, the Ministers—and to the assistants—as it were, the Under-Secretaries of State.
We thus have a formal situation whereby, although some of the Departments are devolved under the terms of the Bill, the Ministers in charge of them are on a footing holding the same type of appointments and holding them by the same tenure as the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretaries of State. That throws into relief the practical and constitutional difficulty of combining in one Executive—indeed, in combining in one Government, namely, Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom—persons who arrived there by different routes owing their position to and being responsible to two different assemblies in the sense of depending on their good will.
If I am correct so far—I am endeavouring to be precise and I hope that I am succeeding in being accurate—we should have in Northern Ireland what is technically a part of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, yet some of the members of that part of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom could not be bound by the essential rules, principles and conventions which bind members of the Government in our constitutional understanding.
This can be observed by testing two alternatives. If they hold their positions subject to the approval of the Assembly—if they do not, how does the Assembly control those Departments—what is their relationship to their colleagues? They do not seem to have a relationship with their colleagues in the sense in which we normally understand it. They are not bound to agree with their colleagues on matters of policy. They are free to criticise the policy of the Government. They are free to correspond with one of the editors of the Financial Times without any inhibition or concealment of their personal opinions. They are in no real respect colleagues either of those who are heading the other Departments in Northern Ireland or of the rest of the Government.
3.15 am
If, on the other hand, they behave as colleagues, if they accept collective responsibility with the rest of their colleagues in the Northern Ireland Department or with the rest of their colleagues in the Government, they will constantly have to tell the Assembly that the answer is a lemon. They will have to tell the Assembly "It is not what you think, it is not how you vote, it is not the results of your debates here in this Assembly that will determine my action as head of this or that Department. Like all the other actions of Government Ministers, that will essentially be a decision of the Government, covered by collective responsibility and sustained by the support that the Government have in the House of Commons."
That is not a workable or a credible arrangement. If it were ever put into practice, it would rapidly bring into discredit the whole contrived devolutionary contraption because joint responsibility is at the heart of the control of an elected Assembly over the Executive. It was part of the exertion of the control of the House over Her Majesty's


Ministers that Her Majesty's Ministers either hung together or hung separately. The two arrived at the same time. Collective Cabinet responsibility and the full control of the House over the Executive in England—I suppose it was so originally—belong together, arrived together and are inherently inseparable. When a Government act in a certain way, if they take a decision, whether it be financial, legislative or a decision to embark on legislation of this contradictory and unworkable character, the House could exercise no control if the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), for example, were not bound by collective responsibility. I do not know what his views and wishes would be were he not a member of the Government. But what his wishes and views about the Bill would be if he were not a member of the Government are irrelevant because the only views and wishes that he can express as long as he is a member of the Government are those that are collectively held and collectively defended.
Whatever may have been said earlier in dispraise of Whips by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), even Whips are bound by a collective responsibility. The Under-Secretary will recognise that no discredit to himself or to any other Minister was implied in what I said.
It is the essence of the system that we control the Executive, because every member of it takes responsibility for all that his colleagues do, although he may not have been consulted by his colleagues. Indeed, junior Ministers often have no knowledge of the process by which or the reasons for which departmental decisions are arrived at in other Departments. Nevertheless, they are bound by them. A junior Minister at the Department of the Environment, for example, cannot go around saying "Don't blame me for the lousy way they are carrying on at the Ministry of Defence because personally I regard the decision to go for Trident as indefensible." That would be impossible. Such behaviour, if permitted, would bring about the dissolution of the Government. If it were not instantly followed by the dismissal of the Minister concerned, it would destroy the necessary relationship that we understand between the House and the Government as a collectivity.
Yet, in purporting to set up devolved government in Northern Ireland we are doing exactly that. Either it will be a mockery in which the persons appointed will from that moment on cock a snook and snap their fingers at the Assembly from which they came, or we shall introduce into Government and into a Department a breach that is totally inconsistent with the whole theory of parliamentary democracy and responsibility as we know it in the United Kingdom. Indeed, no argument or illustration more clearly demonstrates that the Bill would separate Ulster from the rest of the United Kingdom than the effect that the process of devolution would have upon the parliamentary processes and principle in respect of that Province.
Practical conflicts, although less important than constitutional conflict, will arise all the time. The Assembly will not vote money. Certainly at the stage of rolling devolution with which part II of the schedule deals the Assembly has no financial powers either in the sense of Ways or Means or in the sense of Supply. It will not control expenditure or provide revenue. It is therefore beyond all human possibility that that Assembly, directing itself to the different branches of administration in Northern Ireland, will not pose demands on the

Administration that cannot be fulfilled within the financial limits under which it is bound to operate. Anyone who has dealt with Northern Ireland opinion will be well aware that even when confronting this House, which has to provide as well as to spend, there is all too great a facility in the Province to assume not merely that problems can be solved by expenditure but that it is evidence of ill will and alienation towards the Province if the additional expenditure demanded for this, that or the other purpose is not forthcoming.

Mr. John Patten: I should first exonerate the right hon. Gentleman from constantly coming to the House and asking for excessive additional sums of money for Northern Ireland, as that has not been his habit. Looking objectively at the situation when the Assembly is set up and working under full or partial devolution, would it not be reasonable to expect it to come to the same kind of accommodation about how to distribute money—putting it crudely, how to carve up the cake and spend the money—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to discuss with his Cabinet colleagues regarding the amount of Supply that he can gain under programme 17 for expenditure in the Province?

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman inadvertently referred to full devolution. We are referring to partial or a stage of rolling devolution.
My answer to the Minister's question is "No", I do not think that that is what would happen. I see no reason why it should happen. There is no reason why those who are responsible for only two Departments out of eight should say "In exercising our responsibility for these two Departments we must come to arrangements and understandings with the other Departments that we are prepared to defend." It is human nature to assume that these Departments would say "These are our Departments that have been entrusted to the Ulster Assembly and to Ulster Ministers."
The Ulster Ministers and the Assembly will be frustrated because they will be denied what is necessary for the full and proper discharge of what we demand from those Departments and from the services that they provide. They can easily say "It is not our business or any concern of ours. We are not responsible to those who elected us for the sub-division of the money between those Departments and the other Departments. They must look after themselves and make their own case. They must be answerable through the parliamentary channel."
The very basis of collegial behaviour in controlling expenditure is destroyed at the start by partial devolution. Not only is there no reason to expect it, but the whole structure is such as to render it unlikely. It is contrary to natural behaviour that there should be the same relationship between Ministers.
Let me contrast the situation between the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with his responsibility for social services, his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland responsible for the environment and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is responsible for education. Every one of those Ministers knows perfectly well that there are certain limitations that he has to place on the work of his Department to conform to the internal and external finance decisions of the Government of Northern Ireland both the internal carve-up and the


external share as between the rest of the Government and the Government of Northern Ireland. Every one of those Ministers will, therefore, defend the consequences of the limitation placed upon him by his own colleagues and by his own Government.
That is not the situation for the head of a Department appointed under the schedule who will have no collegial relationship with his colleagues and will be under no obligation to defend their decisions or to accept any collective responsibility either for the total or for the subdivision of the total of the money spent in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Patten: I am sorry to indulge in what may be a theoretical debate. I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, in his interesting discussion of the doctrine of collegiality in ministerial responsibility for financial matters, that human nature and immoderate demands might cause the system to break down. However, there is nothing inherent in the structure. I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. He did not refer only to human nature. He also referred to the structural aspect of these proposals. There is nothing in the structure that suggests his fears will be realised.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to my responsibility for social services and health and to the housing responsibility of my hon. Friend. I shall give one short example to the right hon. Gentleman. Let us suppose that under partial devolution the Department of Health and Social Security was devolved and the Department of the Environment, with its responsibility for housing, was not yet devolved, but both the direct rule Ministers and—the term used by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux)—the native Ministers had to get together to look at the pattern of expenditure. I find it hard to believe that the structure of their discussions would not allow them to see, as the Northern Ireland Economic Council said, that there had been too much public expenditure on the Health Service in recent years in the Province and too little expenditure on housing. That problem faces us all. There is no reason inherent in the structure for people not to draw the right conclusions from that.

Mr. Powell: I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's challenge, and I apologise—it was not my intention—if it involves examining two or three cases. Let us suppose that there is one devolved Department where the head holds his office as the representative of the Assembly. Let us suppose he says "I cannot do what you want, and what ought to be done in this Department, because I am not provided with the increase in the expenditure required to carry out this plan over the next two or three years." Let us suppose that the Assembly proceeds to pass a resolution condemning the Government for starving the education or road service. Who leads the rout? It will be the head of the Department, because that is his easy answer for his shortcomings.
3.30 am
Let us also suppose that there are three or four heads. I caught a suggestion that the Minister thought that they might get together to share out the sop to Cerberus that would be thrown to them by the Secretary of State as their share of the total. Those three or four heads would not form a collective entity. Each would be obliged to look separately at his own Department, and each would find the

blame for the deficiencies not in the behaviour of the other devolved heads of Departments but in the decision of the Government.
When I say what I am describing is the result of the structure, I mean that it is a direct consequence of the notion of partial devolution, because I believe that partial devolution is a chimera. It is a chimera in practice because people will not behave that way, and it is a chimera in constitutional theory in that it is incompatible with collective responsibility.
This point was put to the Minister earlier, although perhaps not so fully as we now have the opportunity of putting it. The Committee will recollect that it has never been taken seriously. If I understand it, the Government's answer has been "Oh, well, if you want to make progress, that is the kind of anomaly and contradiction that you must put up with." They have not sought to deny the constitutional and democratic conundrum. They have simply said "You must put up with the conundrum because it is implicit in moving gradually towards full devolution."
That is a fatal frame of mind. It is the old fallacy of saying "We want to bring, something about and it is therefore possible to do so." That is the sort of fallacy that underlies the 1973 Act as well as this Bill. The view is "Here is something that we have persuaded ourselves is desirable. It must be practicable because it is desirable. If it involves contradictions, they must be ingnored or we must pretend that they will not prove to be obstacles." The result will be the same as in 1973.
If we impose upon the Province an arrangement that defies what we understand to be the logic of parliamentary democracy—which I rephrase as the responsibility of an Executive to an elected Assembly—the result is not that the Province has half devolution and half satisfaction but that it is discontented, frustrated and in the end concludes that it has been cheated, been promised one thing and been given another.
If the Government should say "Apply that to what you wish to see instead"—I hope that I may make this argument by way of contrast and not in its own right—and if we are talking about an extension of devolved administration or, to use the Great Britain term, local government, none of those problems would arise. Those who administered would carry collective financial responsibility to those to whom the services were tendered, not for 100 per cent. of the cost—we are familiar with that in Great Britain—but for the marginal and decisive cost element of the services. They would be in the position, as a joint body, of all being the executive, because all the members of a local authority are members of the executive. They would all bear genuine responsibility to their constituents for their administration and the financial consequences of that administration.
They might say, as a body, "If we had a larger grant from the Government we would not need to increase the rates so much", but their constituents would be quick—we know how irrationally quick constituents sometimes are—to link the direct taxation burden of rates with the performance of the rates-financed executive. Those deficiencies have been created by the form of devolution proposed. They would not arise in the form of devolution against which the right hon. Gentleman has set his face. On the contrary, there would be genuine mutual and joint responsibility on the part of those who took the decisions.
It would be wrong for the Committee to part from the schedule, and thus from the part of the Bill that is


concerned with rolling devolution, until it has seen a much more satisfactory confrontation by the Government of the constitutional problem that I have outlined than anything that has been seen so far.

Mr. Bill Walker: The schedule illustrates clearly the difficulty that faced the Government when trying to frame legislation to meet the needs of change from direct rule to partial devolution and, if necessary, back to direct rule. The interesting debates on the Bill have shown that most hon. Members are worried about that aspect of the proposals. How can one have rolling devolution without introducing instability and insecurity into the system?
The suspension of direct rule and the return to it after partial devolution that has proved to be unsatisfactory and the prospect of annual renewals can only be a recipe for uncertainty. In my experience, uncertainty is the greatest enemy of investment. However one wishes it to be different, the facts of life are that if one is unsure one does not invest. Uncertainty will lead to a lack of investment.
Thus, the very thing that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his colleagues are hoping to achieve—somehow, as a result of these proposals, to bring about a greater degree of stability—will not happen. The opposite will happen. Things will be unstable and uncertain. Just how my hon. Friend and his colleagues can imagine that anyone with capital to invest in a future would be prepared to do so in a situation as uncertain as this, I do not know.
It is uncertain in the words of my right hon. and hon. Friends, because they state clearly in the schedule that they do not expect that partial devolution will necessarily work. They are making provisions to roll it back if it does not work. It is almost an admission of failure before one begins. To expect that they will get investment into the Province with those problems seems to me to be flying in the face of all experience of investment.
I shall go even further. This uncertainty may be considered in some quarters to be a greater disincentive to investment than terrorism in Northern Ireland. However ghastly these acts are, and however dreadful we believe them to be, we have to see them in the light of what happens elsewhere in the world. There is no lack of investment in the city of New York or in Chicago, where more people die through violence than in Northern Ireland. In those cities, they know the score on their elections. They know what powers are involved in the running of the city. Therefore, they have at least some idea of what will happen over a period during the lifetime of an Administration.
Every form of government, however one views it, has advantages and disadvantages, but the weakest form of government is one where the citizen is at a loss to understand just who is responsible for what, and whom he can approach when he is concerned over a matter that has been handled by Ministers in the Westminster Parliament, and then been passed on to those who have been appointed in the devolved Assembly to look after that partial devolution, and then had it rolled back again. I cannot think of a more uncertain position for electors and voters, if it has been brought about, as we imagine that it must have been brought about, because these partially devolved powers have been rolled back because they have not been

operated satisfactorily to the view of the 70 per cent. majority of the Assembly and the Province is returned to direct rule.
I was prompted to speak on this schedule because I am a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I know from my experience the problems that arise as a result of maladministration. These are brought to the notice of the Committee, and the Ministers on the Government Front Bench will know that we deal with the Northern Ireland Commissioner as well. That maladministration often results from a failure to communicate within Departments. The failure is often the result of changes in the Departments. I cannot imagine a situation which is more likely to create problems of communication than rolling devolution proposals.
We have here a very abstruse problem. I know from my experience of considering the matter of the Health Service Commissioner, who is the same chap wearing a different hat, that one of the great problems that has been experienced, where life has been concerned, has been the failure of effective communications between different health boards and between different hospitals. Partial devolution will result in a Department being run by the Executive appointed by the Assembly. If for some reason the Assembly is unhappy and the Department is returned to the United Kingdom to be administered, more problems will be caused to the Ombudsman than almost any other activity. The majority of complaints arise from the failure to communicate.
3.45 am
Housing allocation is a thorny problem at the best of times. If the housing Department is partially devolved and housing allocation is based on a system judged to be fair by the Executive, it is bad if the Department is then returned to the United Kingdom Parliament for it to control and administer and it then chooses another system.
Housing repairs and renovations cause more problems. A problem that was referred to the local government commissioner in Scotland arose because a fireplace was installed in council property. The fireplace had a closed-in front to make the combustion more efficient and ensure that the best possible use was made of fuel. The fire was badly installed and the doors did not function properly. The customer complained to the local authority. The Committee will readily appreciate the point I am making. It is important that we recognise what the schedule contains. We are interested in the people of Northern Ireland.
That complaint occurred because the fire was incorrectly installed and used five times the normal amount of fuel. It took many years to investigate and coincided with a change in local government. Administrations and responsibilities changed and communications broke down. The complaint was recorded and not acted upon before the administration changed. When the lady complained again the matter was taken up afresh, but unfortunately that brand of fire was no longer in production and it was difficult to obtain spare parts. It was investigated by the Local Government Commissioner.

The Chairman: Order. I am having great difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman's argument in relation to the schedule.

Mr. Walker: I am referring to the Parliamentary Commissioner and Commissioner for Complaints under


paragraph 7. I am a member of the Select Committee dealing with the Parliamentary Commissioner and Commissioner for Complaints for Northern Ireland. I am explaining that the problems that we face are brought about largely by breakdowns of communication within and between Departments.
I am illustrating by example what happened as a result of recent local government changes. Communication problems arose. If an Administration which appoints individuals lose support, devolution will be rolled back. That will cause problems and increase the work load of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Commissioner for Complaints.
Our experience in the Select Committee shows clearly that maladministration arises, not because someone wilfully sets out to maladministrate but because of the structure of a Department and the way in which it is run.
I am sorry that the Minister is unhappy about that, but I spend many hours in Select Committee studying the problems in the hope of learning something. I am worried about the fact that the work load of that Committee may increase as a result of rolling devolution. That is a valid point. I am a hardworking member of a Committee diligently attempting to carry out my duties in the best interests of the House and the country. Often the work of Committees is not understood unless their members explain the matter to the House.
Rarely are Select Committee reports studied as carefully as they should be. Members of Select Committees study their own Committees' reports. I am a member of more than one Committee and I have to spend enough time reading my own Committees' reports without reading in detail the reports of others.
It is right that I should explain that my judgment is that uncertainty will exist in Northern Ireland as a result of the rolling devolution proposals and that that will lead to a substantial rise in the number of complaints to the Commissioner. People will then be unhappy and uncertain, and the proposal will lead to more and more trouble.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am against the schedule because none of the arguments has been answered. The questions were not dealt with. The Minister suggested that hon. Members who thought progress had been made should go off and leave others to get on with the business. I note that he has left us to get on with it.
As a former Unionist Member once said, the measure may pass through the House, but it will never pass the Bann bridge in Portadown. The real working of the Bill depends on its reception in Ulster. Academic exercises to satisfy time schedules or to appear to be doing something will not stand the test of time. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker).
As we have been going through the night and have seen how fresh we are, I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) shows no sign of weariness. Neither will the people of Ulster in standing for what they believe to be parliamentary democracy and their rights as part of the parliamentary system. As schedule 1 is being examined, a transformation may be going on in Parliament that may prepare Ulster to accept the medicine that is being prescribed for it in the schedule. We have noted time and time again that there has been a transformation in the Committee in that there is no

Opposition as it was hitherto known. At the heart of the schedule, the whole concept of devolving to an Executive the principle of—

Mr. Budgen: I dare say the hon. Member is not a reader of The Guardian, but he may have seen on Monday a most important article which started as follows:
The Government has secured an unofficial understanding with enough Labour MPs to ensure that a guillotine, restricting debate on its new Northern Ireland legislation, will be passed if necessary.
Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a happy position for a group of hon. Members to be in if they can get what they want without debate or discussion? It is plain that they will get what they want as part of the price for either voting with the Government or abstaining on a guillotine motion. As we labour through the night, would not the hon. Gentleman like to join me and others in congratulating the official Opposition on their good fortune?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I had not seen the article but I share some of the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman.
We in Ulster have for some 10 years been asking Parliament to set us the example of this wonderful thing in action. Tonight we see the beginning of it. It is given to young men to see visions. We can look forward to the day when we shall have this magnificent spectacle of partnership for the good of the nation, where in the one Government we shall have representatives from one extreme of the political spectrum to the other, all working together harmoniously. When we see that happening, we can understand this working out in Northern Ireland.
I oppose the schedule for another reason. As I understand it, the Secretary of State has said that he wants, from the very first day, the advice of the Northern Ireland people through their elected Assembly. Yet at the very heart of the schedule he is surrendering that privilege on some important matters. The excepted and reserved matters will continue to be debated by this Parliament alone, without the benefit of the wisdom and experience of the Northern Ireland Assembly, whose opinion he desperately desires on other matters. He is robbing himself and his successor of much wisdom, which he acknowledges the need for in lesser matters.
4 am
As I understand it, the schedule is not concerned with legislative matters. It provides only for advice. The schedule is designed to help the Secretary of State to continue when everything is not going too well. Some matters may be devolved, whereas others will not be. While the Committee has been urged to vote in favour of the Bill to secure the better government of Northern Ireland and to involve the people of Northern Ireland in their own Government, the Government say that devolution should not apply in all matters.
There is a lack of consistency. I can understand why some matters are reserved and excepted. However, the Assembly will be virtually a talking shop. It is a pity that in such vital matters for the people of Northern Ireland the House, particularly the Secretary of State and those associated with him, will be robbed of the wisdom and experience of the Assembly.
I do not think that the schedule should be added to the Bill until the Secretary of State and those advising him have considered how to answer the questions concerning the introduction to the Bill, whence all else flows. It is


designed to give stability and to help in the economic progress and better security of the Province, yet security is taken out of the care and concern of the Assembly.
The whole exercise, of which the schedule is part, is designed not to give us economic progress, economic security and stability but to give us what I have previously called "shunting" devolution—one step forward and two steps back. The whole thing is a house of cards and will add to the instability of the country. On the day after another foul murder in Ulster, it is tragic that the Committee should in any way give the people of Northern Ireland even the vaguest impression that the pattern will be changed.
As I understand the schedule, there must be participation at all levels before the Bill becomes operable. That is the level at which we in Ulster long for a lead from the House. In discussion with the official Opposition, I have suggested that they might join together with other Opposition parties to change the form of Government. I received a raw answer.
On another occasion, when a colleague in the Ulster Unionist Party suggested to Her Majesty's Ministers that they might invite a certain gentleman from my side of the House to join the Government, because that would be a masterly demonstration of partnership for the good of the nation and would show people in the backwoods of Ulster how to behave in a democratic fashion, the answer was "Do you not know that he is the enemy of all that we stand for?" When the response was "And yet you ask us to bring into the Government in Northern Ireland, as of right, those who are dedicated to destroy the State as we know it and love it", the reply came "You must have that as the price of stability and progress."
I ask the Committee for further consideration of the fatuous reasons given to it for accepting the schedule and the Bill, and I ask the Government to think again before they try to impose something on Northern Ireland that experience and history say is unworkable.

Viscount Cranborne: I begin my few remarks at this early hour of the morning by thanking you, Mr. Weatherill, for calling me. Because of the activities of the Patronage Secretary during the past two sittings, I have not been fortunate enough to catch your eye. Therefore, I am most grateful to you, even at what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) calls the soporific part of the morning, for being able to address myself to the partial suspension of direct rule.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many speeches he has prepared? I have sat beside him during our past two sittings, and my recollection is that he must have risen to speak on six or more occasions. Perhaps he will scour his recollection.

The Chairman: May I remind the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne), before he is tempted, that we are dealing with schedule 1, as amended. I do not imagine that he has prepared more than one speech for this debate.

Viscount Cranborne: Naturally, Mr. Weatherill, I should never be tempted into a path which was not the path of rectitude. Fortified by your warning, I shall not dream of animadverting for a second to memory lane and

referring to my forthcoming publication of a book called "The 100 best speeches that I never made". I know that junior Back Benchers in this place have to learn to savour the occasional times on which they are called and to regard them as the privilege that they undoubtedly are. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) for his well-meant intervention on my behalf. However, encouraged by you, Mr. Weatherill, I return at once to the schedule.
I am not a military man, but I know that all members of this Committee have watched with growing apprehension and admiration the events in the Falkland Islands over the past 10 weeks. One thing which struck me very much during the amphibious operations was that the moment of greatest danger for our soldiers and sailors was when the ships were attempting to land people from the sea on to the islands. There is an analogy between what happens in military operations and the question of partial or rolling devolution.
The most dangerous moment in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's scheme is the one which comes when we attempt to transfer from the relative security, however temporary it might be, of direct rule to the dangerous and inhospitable ground—

Mr. Budgen: And untrustworthy.

Viscount Cranborne: —indeed, and untrustworthy ground ashore. That would correspond to the untrustworthy ground of devolved government. We will face not the successful military outcome that we saw in the Falkland Islands but rather the attempt by my right hon. Friend at a landing, the success of which is not assured and, indeed, is virtually guaranteed not to take place.[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) does not agree with that. He makes that plain. It always grieves me to disagree with my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration in all matters, but the dangers presented by the device of rolling devolution make my hair stand on end.
The right hon. Member for Down, South has stated clearly his objections. I could not follow his skill and expertise in constitutional matters, but I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the question of finance. It was rightly pointed out during our debate on clause 2 and later on schedule 1 that the Department of Finance and Personnel will not be transferred under rolling devolution until all other Departments have been transferred. The reason was made clear earlier in our proceedings. If that Department were transferred first, it would be impossible for rolling devolution to have any chance of success. Therefore, even with the cock-eyed logic of this scheme, one can see the reason for delaying the transfer of that Department until the last possible moment.
However, reverting to my analogy of the most dangerous moment—the moment of landing—we face considerable difficulties during the period before that transfer takes place, if, indeed, it ever does. Hon. Members, particularly those on the Conservative Benches, understand the danger in any system of Government of dividing the responsibility for raising and providing finance from the responsibility of spending the money that is raised.

Mr. John Patten: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the local government option, if I may paraphrase it in that coarse way, were to be adopted in the future, local


authorities in Northern Ireland would suffer from that disadvantage? They would often be asking for money which they did not raise themselves and which they would receive via a block grant from the Government.

Viscount Cranborne: I thought that someone would point that out. One of the great disadvantages of our system of local government finance is that at least 60 per cent. of the finance provided to local government comes from the Government rather than from the rates. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary pointed out, that is not a satisfactory situation and it has been largely responsible for the growing number of complaints about the rating system.
4.15 am
The division, which is only partial in local government, would be complete under the partial suspension of direct rule. During that partial suspension, the division between those who spend the money and those who raise it—British taxpayers—would contribute to the uncertainty and lack of direction that many of us fear will be the results of the Government's proposals.
The division of responsibility makes the administration of finance doubly difficult. There will have to be people handling the matter for the Government and others dealing with it for Assembly Members. Such a development is foreshadowed in the notes on clauses:
devolved departments would have wide discretion to establish their expenditure priorities. DOFP's responsibilities for approving expenditure and staffing would be unaffected under partial devolution.
That seems to foreshadow two Departments covering finance. It will be difficult for Assembly Members and Government representatives to agree, and I can foresee the sort of difficulties that the right hon. Member for Down, South referred to.
The native Ministers, as the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has so eloquently named them—the extraordinary colonial nature of the Bill is pointed up by the fact that that description fits so snugly—will spend all their time blaming Northern Ireland Ministers for failing to provide money for native Ministers' pet schemes. That is a recipe for the sort of difficulties that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who believes passionately in the justice and future efficacy of the Bill, is seeking to avoid.
We need to examine the practical difficulties involved in the schedule.

Mr. Budgen: Is there not a difference between the position where, for instance, the local authorities within the Socialist republic of South Yorkshire attack, as they would put it, the mad monetarist regime at Westminster and the position that will obtain in Northern Ireland, where the devolved Executive will not merely be attacking the Westminster Parliament because the Government may be of a different colour in some respects but will be driving a wedge between Ulster and the remainder of the United Kingdom? The inexorable logic of what they will say is that they wish to have an independent Ulster, which will, sadly, be seen increasingly as a solution by a larger group here in England.

Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend is right. The narrower consequence of what he has suggested, the consequence that will arise first and the one that I suggest is most closely allied to that which we are discussing in

schedule 1, is the difference between the Socialist republic of South Yorkshire, as it is so unfortunately but aptly known, and the Assembly and the devolved powers enjoyed by it in the event of the Bill working, even in part. The Assembly will have legislative powers while Local authorities in this part of the United Kingdom will not.
The powers that are enjoyed by local authorities on this side of the water are granted by the House of Commons and another place—in short, by Parliament. It is purely as a result of the powers granted by Parliament that local authorities can function. There are no inherent contradictions between the powers enjoyed by local authorities here because they are granted by the one authority which has the power to legislate. This will not be so under rolling devolution as foreshadowed by the Bill—indeed, very much the reverse. Part of the very character of that which my right hon. Friend proposes is that the functions that are devolved should have legislative powers. There is a section under paragraph 4 in part II of the schedule that is headed "Legislative functions". That supports my argument.
Finance is crucial because it will make it administratively difficult for the proposals in the Bill to be implemented. There will be a practical difficulty for those who are affected by the proposals. This point is made clearly in the Green Paper on local government. If finance is separated from the administration of services, it is difficult for those who are using the services and living under the legislative powers to see where the true responsibility lies
I return to paragraph 5 of the useful notes that have been provided by my tight hon. and hon. Friends. The final paragraph discusses in a sweep of one and a half sentences the difficulties to which I have alluded. This encapsulates one of the main problems of schedule 1. Here we have the argument between devolved Departments and their right to establish their expenditure priorities and the DOFP responsibilities for approving expenditure and staffing. Here lies the problem. If one is an inhabitant of, say, Belfast or Londonderry, does one pin the responsibility for what one may consider to be inadequate expenditure on the devolved Department or does one go to where the responsibility really lies, to the man who doles out the money, who in this case is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?
It is abundantly clear that, once the amount of expenditure is approved for each Department, there will be some discretion within the devolved apparatus to say how that global sum should be spent. But the amount of that global sum will not be covered—I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—by the powers that are given under the devolved arrangements. Therefore, the unfortunate individual living in Northern Ireland with a complaint will and should address himself with perfect reason not to his elected Assembly but to his elected representative in Westminster who should be representing his interests to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Therein lies a difficulty. I understand that under the arrangements that we will discuss later—I do not intend to trespass on that territory now as I should be out of order—it will not be possible for the individual to address himself through his Member of Parliament because his Member of Parliament will not be allowed to inquire on his behalf about matters that have been devolved. It is a classic "Catch 22" situation. If the extraordinarily difficult


proposal is to have any practical chance of success, that aspect must be thought out. I have given only one example in the interests of brevity, although many of my right hon. and hon. Friends might find that hard to believe.
If we are to propose anything for the better government of Northern Ireland, it is not enough to have woolly expressions of good will. I say that with the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten). He knows that I bear the greatest respect for him. We must consider the practical consequences of what we are doing. That is not being done in schedule 1.
Perhaps it would be sensible to give one more example. Not long ago we discussed amendment No. 66. It may seem long ago to those of us who have had the privilege of listening to the debate last evening and this morning. It was a Government amendment that added words to paragraph 3(1) of the schedule for reasons that those in the Chamber understood. Some of us felt that one year was not enough, but we quite understood why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to table the amendment. It took account of the possibility of an order being revoked.
When I asked my hon. Friend about this earlier, he properly directed me to clause 5, which we shall be considering in due course. Nevertheless, it seems relevant to the proposition before us to ask what are the circumstances in which an order under clause 2(1)(b) may be revoked, as provided for in amendment No. 66 which was accepted earlier. I imagine that the reason for such a revocation would be perfectly plain. This would then have a direct bearing on the schedule. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) that it is thus difficult to think in terms of amendment No. 66 without at least tangentially considering what is proposed in clause 5.
4.30 am
I merely say in passing that the cross-community support that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has predicated as one of the criteria for proposing the form of rolling devolution in clause 2 would undoubtedly have, as it were, a reverse image. If cross-community support is needed for the proposals to be made, the lack of it must be one of the criteria to be taken into account when decreeing that an order must be revoked.
I can quite understand the order being revoked in a dramatic event such as the general strike in Ulster in 1974. If such an event occurred—God forbid—as a result of the arrangements for rolling devolution breaking down, everyone would recognise that it had happened and there would be no doubt about it.
There is a greater difficulty, however, if another criterion has broken down and it is less obvious that the order must be revoked. I suggest that that is the case when my right hon. Friend's criterion of cross-community support has broken down. It is by no means clear, although I trust that it will be made clear when my right hon. Friend's amendment is published, what constitutes cross-community support. It may be clear to those who know more about Northern Ireland than I do, but I must confess that, listening to earlier speeches, I was more than a little mystified at the extraordinary lack of agreement in the Committee about this.
Some have said that there is an identifiable Catholic community and an identifiable Protestant community, but others—notable among them was my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison)—denied that, pointing out that considerable numbers of Roman Catholics support the Unionist cause. I am also told that there are those of no given religious persuasion who will attack British soldiers and explode bombs all over Ulster with vim and vigour, despite the difficulty that we might have in attaching to them the label of Roman Catholic. I cite just those two examples to show how difficult it is to determine what is one community in Northern Ireland and what is another.
I suggest that this is another difficulty that will be encountered by my right hon. Friend as he presses on with his plans for the Bill. He may find that the only criterion by which he can judge whether there is the cross-community support which is a precondition for the order that might have to be revoked is his own judgment.
I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend, but I say in all sincerity that politicians tend to claim to know the way their constituents are feeling. All of us have claimed to know the way that the country thinks. More often than not, the country happens to think the same way as politicians, and politicians pray in aid that opinion. They adjudge that the country agrees with them, and that is convenient.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would resist such a temptation. Nevertheless, there are many examples in Great Britain and throughout the world, but specifically in Ulster, of politicians' judgments having been proved to be wrong. To rely on a vague feeling of cross-community support is highly unreliable. It is particularly unsatisfactory in a community that has proved time and again to be almost incapable of agreeing across communities, whatever those communities may be.
The constituent parts of those communities have varied throughout the history of Ireland. We need only recall the attempts of Lord Randolph Churchill in the 1870s to strike up an alliance with the Roman Catholics, one of whose leaders at that time was Issac Butt. He regarded the Roman Catholics as the natural allies of the Tories. The proposition that the Roman Catholics in Eire are the natural allies of the Tories now would be greeted with hoots of derision. I give that as an example of how shifting those constituent parts can be and how misleading it is to assume that what is true in Ulster today will necessarily be true tomorrow, or was true yesterday.
I am, therefore, driven inescapably to the conclusion that the only criterion which can work in Ulster and, ultimately, in the whole of the United Kingdom is that which takes the ballot box as its authority. Therefore, the rescinding of an order that is foreseen under amendment No. 66 will surely happen, if that order is ever made, because of the imprecision of the cross-community support criterion.
I plead guilty to the same fallibilities that I accuse other politicians of being prey to, but with great daring I put forward a judgment of my own. Because of the imprecision, it is almost certain that the amended paragraph 3(1) will be brought into effect if ever rolling devolution gets under way. On that matter, too, the schedule is seriously defective. I should have thought that the Committee would vote against the schedule and that it would urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider the schedule and be more precise about the way in which we


are to proceed, otherwise the dangers to which I alluded at the beginning of my remarks will be at least as great as the dangers attendant upon an amphibious landing in the Falklands, and rolling devolution will find us caught at the most vulnerable point.

Mr. Molyneaux: Part II of the schedule causes me the greatest worry, particularly that paragraph dealing with partial devolution, which I regard as absolutely fatal to the whole scheme.
The Secretary of State will remember that that part of his plan startled those of us with some parliamentary experience when he outlined it to our party. That was disclosed in early January. At that time we had a fairly civilised discussion, because it occurred before he dropped the bombshell of cross-community consent, which finally brought the discussions to an end on 8 March. I have already referred to that and do not propose to cover that ground again.
When the right hon. Gentleman unveiled the idea of partial devolution, we probed his mind to discover his thinking about divided responsibility and the lack of collective responsibility, only to find to our surprise that he was one of us. It was quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman's heart was not in it.
Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) I thought that the right hon. Gentleman, as an experienced parliamentarian and Cabinet Minister, would never have invented such a scheme. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has rejoined us, because I am talking about partial devolution and the mixture of native and British Ministers.
I shall not launch an attack on Civil Service advisers, because at most they probably adopted the idea. I guess that the author came from the same stable as the prominent business man who for a time peddled to me suggestions that all 12 Ulster Members should get together and form some kind of an advisory council which would gradually evolve into an Executive that would begin to take over powers from the Secretary of State and, in his opinion, do the job much better. However, that gentleman simply refused to understand that the political mechanisms did not work that way.
I understand that some credit—perhaps it should be some blame—has been attributed to a certain Mr. Catherwood, who is a successful business man and a Member of the European Assembly. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is with us, and he can confirm or repudiate my suggestion that whatever good points the European Assembly may have—I have yet to discover any—it certainly is not a training ground for good administrators, statesmen or legislators. It has no system on which we could model United Kingdom affairs.
4.45 am
The inventor of partial devolution, which is merely a mixture of British and native Ministers, knew nothing about the realities of political life. That is obvious when one considers this improbable design. English Ministers—we have not yet been sufficiently fortunate to have a Scotsman in the Northern Ireland Office—will be accountable to this House, the native Ministers will be accountable to the Assembly, and never the twain shall meet. The Secretary of State was candid enough to say that he had no intention of giving the Assembly the power to call him before it to give an account of his stewardship, because, to use his words,

I did not wish to be involved in any kind of rough-house discussion.
Even if that mix of personalities could get together, perhaps in a bar around Stormont, the two rival assemblies—the House of Commons and the Assembly that is proposed for Northern Ireland—would pull apart the two sets of Ministers, no matter how determined they might be to work together. There cannot be collective responsibility when two sets of people are responsible and accountable to two different bodies that usually pull in opposite directions.
All that would be complicated enough when the two sets of Ministers shared roughly the same national political philosophy, but how much more difficult will it be when there are marked differences between their national political philosophies? The native Ministers are almost bound to have diverse views and most, if not all, will disagree with the political outlook of their superiors—the Secretary of State and his British Ministers. At best, there will be a three-way ministerial divide in opinion and there cannot be a common cause between that group of diverse personalities and political opinions.
Perhaps the worst feature is the lack of cohesion in the Assembly on which the structure is to rest, because there is no reason why the Assembly should not take an unpopular course or should try to defend unpopular policies. It follows that the native Ministers will have no option but to engage in criticism of their English counterparts. That criticism will be made first in the Assembly and the media, being what they are in Northern Ireland, will try to expand and project that criticism to the general public through never-ending interviews, arguments and debates on the "box". One does not know how that will work out. It is an aspect of the scheme to which I have repeatedly drawn the Secretary of State's attention, but he has never attempted to explain how he sees it working or how he will get over that basic difficulty.
The lack of collective responsibility is almost as great a defect as the one to which the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) referred—cross-community support. Those are the twin icebergs on which this ship will founder. Both those problems must be resolved and both icebergs must be moved before the Bill has a chance of working.
Colleagues on both sides of the House have agreed that the debates in Committee over recent weeks have been notable for the lack of any intellectual arguments to refute all the charges and weaknesses that have been pointed out. I hope that before we get much further, a serious attempt will be made to remedy this.
The defect in the Committee system as it is being worked in the Bill—this is no criticism of you and your colleagues in the Chair, Mr. Weatherill—is that the Patronage Secretary comes in hotfoot from the Chief Whip's Office, not having heard one word of the debate. He is in no position to assess the importance of any particular discussion, or the significance of any section of the debate. He simply hops up to the Dispatch Box and moves the closure.
I am forced to the conclusion that if the Committee wants to give the Bill a fair run and any chance of working, it must oppose the inclusion of schedule 1 in the Bill.

Mr. Body: I am conscious that we are now 50 minutes past that magical hour when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that the House passed


from being jocose to being comatose. None the less, in case anyone reads the Official Report, I shall say, so that it may be reported, that the Committee seems to be remarkably alert. Looking around, I can see nobody who is now comatose.
The experts in forensic medicine say that there is a stage between being jocose and being comatose—being bellicose. I hope that you, Mr. Weatherill, will agree that tonight our debates have been very good humoured and no element of any bellicosity has arisen, unlike last week, when there was a touch of it. It is not for me to say whether that was provoked or not.
I shall speak for only a few minutes, first out of sheer interest, in the hope that my first contribution will be so short that I may be visible in the future. Secondly, I think that it is important that people in Northern Ireland should realise that there are a large number of right hon. and hon.Members who wish to take part in these debates.
One hears again and again in Belfast that the House is not very interested in the problems of Northern Ireland. If the Province can be made to realise that there are a large number of hon. Members—many more than the debate as reported will show, because of the closures—interested, it will be all to the good. Thirdly, my contribution will be short because I know that others of my hon. Friends wish to be called.
Part I of the schedule is concerned only where there is full devolution and a general suspension of direct rule. When it fails, as we on the Back Benches are certain that it will, there will be a return to the annual review of direct rule. I do not think that this subject is academic. The trouble is that if we get this full devolution, we shall have something back in Northern Ireland not unlike Stormont. It will have the same bad features that Stormont had.
Above all, there will be one essential issue that will divide the Assembly between those who wish to maintain the Union and those who wish to destroy it. All other issues will be so subordinate that they will be virtually immaterial. Thus the Assembly will be divided not as the House is divided but on different lines. That will be disastrous. I say that because the White Paper "Northern Ireland: a framework for devolution" contains this sentence in paragraph 6:
Northern Ireland's 50 years of devolved government has shaped its politics.
That is indeed true, and, with respect to those who represent Northern Ireland, some of us would say that its shape is ugly and unprepossessing. If we were to have full devolution that shape would be petrified.

Mr. Budgen: Would my hon. Friend agree with the surprisingly courageous second leader in The Times to the effect that, if the Bill is enacted and it fails in Ulster, devolution is dead? Is not that, perhaps, a necessary process in the education of the House of Commons and of those who read the words that pass here and the resolutions that are made?

Mr. Body: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, I am sure that that will be the result. I will not digress, but I believe that before the collapse of the Bill we shall see something much worse which will increase the apprehension of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Budgen: That will be the price of the lesson, unfortunately. If we have the good fortune to persuade the Secretary of State not to interpose that lesson, we shall be doing Ulster and the United Kingdom a great service.

Mr. Body: Yes, but we are gambling, because if as a result of the Bill being enacted the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council is established—we all know that this is but a stepping stone towards the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council, which in turn is a stepping stone to a so-called united Ireland—in the process there will be such fears that will lead to such hatreds and violence in Northern Ireland that the consequences could be appalling.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend is well informed and I am very grateful to him for referring to the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. He will know that there is, as reported in The Guardian, a new and close understanding between the Secretary of State and enough Labour Members to ensure that the guillotine will be passed if necessary. Has my hon. Friend any information about that? Are the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council proposals any part of the price that the Secretary of State may have paid to secure the compliance of Labour Members?

Mr. Body: We all look forward to a contribution from the Opposition Front Bench. If any of its members were to contribute, it would be possible to intervene and probe. While they remain as taciturn as they do, we are prevented from discovering, by one or two interrogatories, the truth of the matter. My hon. Friend will be familiar with that passage in the report of the Second Reading debate when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the exchange of opinions in the Dail when Mr. Haughey, who was then leader of the Opposition, complained to the Prime Minister about the lack of progress towards an Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council and Mr. FitzGerald said that he believed it wise
not to press ahead at this stage with an Anglo-Irish parliamentary council because of the difficulties involved in securing fair representation from Northern Ireland where there was no elected representative body".—[Official Report, 10 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 539.]
No one is more impatient than Mr. Haughey. Once a Northern Ireland Assembly is established, Mr. Haughey will press for the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council to be established and to include representatives from the Assembly.
5 am
Devolution will fail. My hon. Friends and I, with the exception of the Front Bench, are certain of that. It will fail not only because it is intrinsically hopeless but because it has all the dangers that Stormont had. Years ago I was active in Ulster politics. I was nearly the Unionist candidate for Antrim, North, but mercifully I was not. Devolution will collapse because the West Lothian question will arise. That will make it plain that the Assembly cannot succeed in harness with the House of Commons.
Paragraph 1(b) of the schedule will be invoked. At that stage there will be a return to direct rule. I am the enemy of direct rule. It is an insult to the people of Northern Ireland to subject them to direct rule. The White Paper makes a pertinent comment. Paragraph 2 states:
Direct rule from Westminster has been accepted as a temporary arrangement. But it is not a long-term answer. As a result, there is a continuing uncertainty in the Province, which undermines its political stability.
Some of us would not go as far as to agree with every syllable of that passage, but the best that can be said for direct rule and what would happen when the order is revoked, is that it works. It has many blemishes, but it is workable. Having said that, no further advantage can be claimed for it.
I have to admit that perhaps the Government are right about one issue. When I voted earlier in favour of a 10-year period I may have been mistaken. The Government are probably right to believe that one year is enough. It would be a mistake to accept a 10-year or a five-year period. I say that because after years of trying devolution, which fails, we revert to direct rule. When that fails the Government should be convinced that there is only one proper course to be pursued for Northern Ireland. To repeat the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), there is integration without local democracy. What there should be is integration with local democracy, as exists throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore the right course, when that paragraph is in the schedule, is for the Government to go full steam ahead towards local government in Northern Ireland as it is in Great Britain.
At that stage there should be consultations with all the district councils as to whether they would agree to having additional powers comparable to those which our district councils have. The Front Bench has already been asked if there have been consultations with the district councils. Some councils are non-Unionist. Have they expressed a view? All the information that we have from Northern Ireland confirms us in the view that there is not one district council that would not support having the same kind of powers and status as district councils have on this side of the channel.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: It might be well, and perhaps a message might get to him, if my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), whom I saw earlier, were present. He had an opportunity to attend the conference of the Association of Local Authorities. It would be interesting if we could have a record of that conference because it may be that fruitful discussion took place about the way in which local authorities could be endowed with more functions. I do not know if that was the case, but I am sure that my hon. Friend, who has charge of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, could contribute something to the debate on this matter.

Mr. Body: It would be useful and valuable if my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) were to be present. Some of us, including the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), might like to ask him questions, because he has spoken on the subject. I think I am right in saying that he was quoted by the right hon. Member for Down, South in the debate on the White Paper when he seemed to be in favour of extending the functions of local government. Perhaps that is why he has not been on the Front Bench to answer some of the questions that we would like to ask him.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member's memory is not at fault. I happen to have in my hand—it came to hand and I found it—the report of the attendance of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) at the first conference of the Association of Local Authorities, the

very people from whom we want information. Even before he had informed himself of that body, the hon. Gentleman declared himself of his views when he said:
Following the election of an Assembly in the autumn"—
he was optimistic about that—
a key question which will no doubt be considered is to what extent local politicians may wish to return power to district councils or keep it at Stormont.
He pointed out that efficiency was a key consideration and that the running of local matters by the local district councils would be a direct contribution to efficiency. So there is no doubt where the heart of the hon. Member for Basingstoke is. He has been in a position actually to ask the local authorities how they feel about exercising additional powers.
A question which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and I urged upon the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) at a very early point in his period of office, when he showed some hesitation and was already repeating the rote on this subject which is dinned into Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, presumably by their officials, but I am not allowed to make that assumption, was why he did not consult the district councils. He seemed at the time, as the right hon. Member for Spelthorne has a way of seeming, rather impressed, but he never did that.

Mr. Body: I am more than grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. One wishes that the Chamber were filled at the moment by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends to hear that intervention. Cane hopes that they will be able to read it.

Mr. Budgen: Can my hon. Friend, who is percipient about such things, give us any information about the whereabouts of my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) and Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell)? The Committee may have had the good fortune to hear the Secretary of State on Sunday talking about those whose names are on the back of the Bill.
In order to emphasise with particular force and drama the important support that my right hon. Friend has had, no doubt for the first and only time, the Committee may have heard the Secretary of State mention the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Secretary of State for Defence. However, he did not mention my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth and for Basingstoke. Their names are on the back of the Bill and yet we have not heard a dicky bird from them.
In view of the interesting remarks made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke, to which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred, I should have thought that he would come scurrying over here in order that he might, at some stage, lead a debate on local government in Northern Ireland and explain to the Committee his interesting remarks. He is a man of courage and dignity, and surely he would not wish to make such remarks to some uncritical audience in Northern Ireland. He would wish to put them over with the vigour and perspicacity that we have come to expect of him in the Chamber.
I hope that my hen. Friend will be able to help the Committee by explaining why it is that the Secretary of State relies upon those distinguished names on the back of


the Bill and yet denies his junior Ministers the pleasure and privilege of explaining those views to the Committee that they have previously expressed in a forum where they might not be criticised as sharply, though as courteously, as they would be here.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted down that road. A passing reference to the whereabouts of right hon. and hon. Members is in order, but we must not make a meal of it.

Mr. Body: I regret the absence of my two hon. Friends. I am surprised that they are not with us. Both are renowned for the power of their advocacy.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) is in charge of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. That means that he must deal with housing, water, sewerage, roads and so on. I and other hon. Members write dozens of letters to him frequently and at length about blocked pipes, tiles off roofs, flooded houses, bad roads, pot holes and so on.
My experience is that the hon. Gentleman in question can usually be found in his office, beavering away like nobody's business, trying to catch up with the correspondence that we send him, flooding in week after week. I dare say that if someone went to his office he would find him carrying on with the duties that would normally be done by a councillor looking after 500, 600 or 1,000 constituents at local level—and done very well by that councillor—whereas right hon. and hon. Gentlemen representing Northern Ireland constituencies have to tie up the valuable time of this exceedingly able Member with the minute details of administration in Northern Ireland, which many people there would be willing to take on, if they were allowed to do so.

Mr. Body: I do not doubt for a moment what the hon. Member says. I am sure that he writes many letters about sewerage, waterworks, and so on, but I am sure that he also writes many letters on education, housing and social services.
I had thought—though I stand to be corrected—that my hon. Friends who are present in the Chamber and dealing with these debates are responsible for those other issues which must generate just as much correspondence as that which flows in the direction of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. I personally miss my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke and for Bosworth (Mr. Butler). They would have adorned the Front Bench admirably, and would have been good advocates of the Bill. Certainly it needs good advocacy. I do not mean that those who are at present on the Front Bench lack the necessary skills. They have been as persuasive as they can be, although I do not believe that they have yet persuaded any of the Bill's critics to change their minds and support it.
A few minutes ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West listed the names of the back of the Bill. He included the name of Mr. Secretary Pym—the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Of course, we all know that the

Foreign Office has its finger in this pie. We also know that the Overseas and Defence Committee of the Cabinet approved the proposals in the White Paper and the contents of this Bill. As soon as I discovered that fact, I decided to oppose the Bill as best I could.
I promised that I would be brief for the selfish reason that I hoped that I might be visible again in the future if I were. I am conscious that I may prove to be invisible if I speak any longer.
I conclude by saying that I repent my decision to vote for the 10-years period in part I. I think that the Government were right to hold fast to one year. The one year is now in the Bill. One year should be time enough for the Government to carry out the necessary consultations throughout Northern Ireland to make sure what the people there want. We on the Back Benches are convinced that we know what the majority want. We cannot understand why those who are speaking for the Bill, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, persist in saying that local government is not the answer. We are convinced that this devolution, if it comes about, will fail. Let us hope that we shall then advance along the lines which were set out in our party's manifesto at the last election. Then we should have integration plus—not minus—local democracy.

Mr. William Ross: This has been an interesting debate. A number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have put their views to the Committee with great clarity. As the debate has progressed the slow process of the education of the Committee has continued and a greater understanding of the creature that is being created has become clear in the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are giving their attention to the subject.
There is no doubt in my mind, having observed the House at work over a number of years, that such debates and such detailed investigation—some would call it filibustering, although I do not consider it as such—are a necessary part of the process of understanding and a necessary part of the education of Members. On every Bill dealing with constitutional issues but, in particular, Bills dealing with Northern Ireland it is necessary that Members should acquire a detailed knowledge and a subconscious feel for the subject. That is the key to how we should think and react to the proposals before us. Such debates give right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who rarely visit Northern Ireland an understanding of what the people on the ground want and what their understanding of the position is.
We have heard many references in the past few hours to local government. One of the complaints about the so-called local government option in Northern Ireland is that it may leave a devolved Assembly with little to do. For 50 years a devolved Government sat in Stormont. There was also a county council structure and a local council structure. All those councillors had plenty to do, yet Stormont never appeared to run out of work. It always seemed to have enough to keep it occupied. I have never been able to understand the argument that if we give powers to local councillors there will be nothing left for the devolved Assembly.
It appears a strange conclusion that the functions that kept the Stormont Parliament going for 50 years will not now be sufficient to keep it going unless it is intended that so little of real substance would be given to it that it would


have nothing to do. Whenever I look through the Bill, I wonder whether there is any intention of giving real power and authority to the Assembly.
Even those Members from Northern Ireland who listen to Ministers and to other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen acquire a deeper understanding of what is before us. I am not yet clear about a number of matters which have been discussed in detail. It is clear to all Members who have sat through the proceedings that not everyone, including myself, is clear as to how the Executive or the departmental leaders will be appointed and how they will operate either individually or as a group.
The Secretary of State said at one of our meetings that he expected the Catholics to exact a high price for their cooperation. He said that only when he had said, through a slip of the tongue, that devolution could collapse after the Catholics walked out of the Executive.
Who will be the heads and deputy heads of the Departments? What will be their exact status? They will be appointed by the Assembly and will supposedly be responsible to the Assembly. Who will keep them in their place? Like Ministers in this House, they will be appointed during Her Majesty's pleasure. Who will dismiss them—the Assembly, the Secretary of State or Her Majesty? Will they be dismissed when they lose the support of the 70 per cent. of the Assembly that is necessary to keep them in office? They can be heads of Departments only with 70 per cent. or 50 per cent. plus one cross-community support.
What will happen if those people lose that support? Suppose they do something that a number of Assembly Members disagree with and the Secretary of State says "You must go", but they reply "No. We still have 60 per cent. support and we refuse to go". What will happen? Would the Assembly collapse, with the devolved powers returning to the Secretary of State? What would the House think if a Secretary of State said "An individual still enjoys the support of 69 per cent. of the Assembly, but I demand that he be removed from office because two Assembly Members do not like his policies"? That sort of thing will occur regularly.

Mr. John Patten: It may be helpful if the hon. Gentleman delays detailed consideration of those points until we reach clause 5, which is addressed wholeheartedly to the issues that he is raising.

Mr. Ross: If we had considered clause 5 before we discussed the schedule, as we requested, we would not be in the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman is trying to hide.
Let us suppose that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) was in charge of a Department in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: God forbid.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend would do a better job than some of the folk who have had charge of Departments in the past. If he had the support of 65 per cent. of the Assembly and the Secretary of State said that he was 5 per cent. short and, therefore, must go, I guarantee that the Secretary of State would not enjoy the confidence of Members of the Assembly.
5.30 am
The Government and the Secretary of State have not thought this matter through. They have not thought through the implications and ramifications of the Bill.

They should start ID apply their minds to it with a great deal more attention and in much greater depth. If they fail to do so, they will find themselves in a deep Irish bog that has swallowed so many political and military hopes in the past.
To set up heads of Departments who will not have collective responsibility as a group and who can be removed from office is to introduce a system that is fraught with danger. The more one thinks about it the more one is forced to the conclusion that the only system that works in practice is that of 50 per cent. plus one. Everyone was so anxious to think of a fancy solution that would give a place to everyone in the political scene in Northern Ireland that they were prepared to close their eyes to the practicalities.
Many problems will arise because of the ambiguity that still surrounds the argument about what the difference is between 50 per cent. plus one and 70 per cent. I have no doubt that some hon. Members will recall that I made a brilliant speech on this very matter on 10 May.

Mr. Molyneaux: My hon. Friend is blowing his own trumpet, but there is no harm in that.

Mr. Ross: Sometimes it is necessary to remind hon. Members of what is said on these occasions. I think that I was right on 10 May. Everything that has been said from the Government Front Bench today, all the fears that have been expressed and all the arguments that we have heard about what 70 per cent. means, were contained in my remarks on 10 May when I spoke about paragraph 43 and the 70 per cent, requirement, which I said had caused the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) some difficulty. I said:
A careful reading of paragraphs (a) and (b) will show that the only difference between 70 per cent. and a majority of less than 70 per cent. is that the Secretary of State has to lay the matter before the House if there is a 70 per cent. majority but can forget all about it if the majority is less than 70 per cent. Whether the figure is 50 per cent. plus one or 90 per cent. there must be cross-community support …
I assure the right hon. Member for Mansfield that the figure of 70 per cent. is purely a smokescreen to make people think that a 70 per cent. Unionist vote is good enough. It is not. A careful reading of those two paragraphs will quickly reveal that."—[Official Report, 10 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 498.]
That is the precise position. The failure of some to understand what is meant by the statements in the White Paper and the Bill and the statements that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman and his junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office arises from the picture that "devolution" conjures up in the minds of the people of Northern Ireland. People always relate that term to what they have seen and known in the past. Whenever one mentions a devolved Assembly, Government or Stormont in Northern Ireland, the man or woman in the street does not look at the fine print of the Bill or of the White Paper. People have a picture in their minds of what was there before. That is what they relate to.
Therefore, whenever one asks people whether they want Stormont or devolution back, one must understand that people answer the question on the basis not of the present proposals but of what they knew in the past. If one takes account of that aspect of people's perception, many of the difficulties and different opinions such as have emerged in opinion polls fall neatly into place. If one does not understand that all such results do not make sense.
It is often complained that most opinion polls are sketchy and that it is difficult to phrase questions in the


idiom of the people so that they understand precisely the question that is being asked and answer it. People often answer the question that they think is being asked rather than the real one.
We have been told that we need co-operation and reconcilliation. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) was the leading exponent of that argument. I am sorry that she is not present. Pehaps her hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), who is an assiduous attender, will draw her attention to what I am about to say. The right hon. Lady was so poor at searching for reconciliation herself that she had to leave the party that she had served for many years and to turn her back on it because she and some of her right hon. and hon. Friends said that they could not co-exist with other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. I dare say that people in that position could have kept their conscience under strict control and gone along with those with whom they disagreed. To their eternal honour they did not. They did not struggle either. They left and sought pastures new.
Yet, when it comes to Ulster, those right hon. and hon. Members do not apply the same criteria to what we believe in. They tell us that all the things in which we believe are to be undermined, that the things that we love and have worked for all our lives are to be destroyed, and that the country that we love, the party that we work for, care for and cherish is to be moved in a direction of which we do not approve. They tell the people of Northern Ireland that we must accept people, policies and parties that will move all that we believe in in a direction in which we do not wish to go. Apparently we must go along with them. They do not apply the same standards to us. Their judgment is therefore completely worthless because they are not prepared to allow us to live by the standards that they laid down for themselves in party political circumstances.
If there is to be co-operation, which must ultimately mean co-operation in political ideals, it can be achieved only between people who are politically on the same wavelength. Earlier we debated a number of matters, not least the whole question of co-operation and how and why we should try to get along together. I fear that we are harrowing fairly sterile ground, however, as the matter is not so simple as some would have us believe.
If we cannot achieve the 70 per cent. agreement, we have a talking shop. If we have partial or full devolution and people do not like what is happening, perhaps because they are subject to political pressure from their own electorate and wish to protect their backs, they will move out and the house of cards will immediately collapse. We shall then come back down to the level of the Assembly talking shop and try to cobble together another 70 per cent., to use a term that I regard as an insult to cobblers.
That constant rebuilding is the real reason for the opening words of clause 2, "At any time". In other words, if the thing collapses we can try again and again to build up to 70 per cent. with all manner of permutations. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will get together, or they will try to get together with someone else, and so it will go on and it will go on for ever without agreement so long as the hurdle left before us cannot be jumped over.
These are not light matters. I seek not to filibuster but to lay before the Committee the practical outworkings of

the proposals before us. We have been told that there are two aspirations and that there must be a place for both. In the same debate, however, we were told that there must be a place for all sections. Which is it? Is it just the two, or is it all? I tend to think that it is all, which makes nonsense of the idea of leaving out the SDLP.
The best advice that I can give the Government is simple. There is a time for reflection, and time spent in reflecting on our debates will not be wasted. As the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said earlier, it is obvious that the Government have lost the intellectual argument on the Bill because it is impracticable. It is unworkable because the Bill as drafted simply cannot succeed. The sooner that is realised and the proposal is changed or abandoned and forgotten, the better it will be. To continue on this path will mean nothing but misery for the people of Ulster, and we have had misery enough already.
I cannot forget—and no hon. Member will easily forget—the advice read out to us by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), who is not present today, about the advice given to Conservative candidates, which no doubt was also received and read by right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench, about the intentions of the Conservative Party and the new Conservative Government. They were told that the view of the Shadow Cabinet—I am sure that the election manifesto and the briefing notes were not issued without the authority of the right hon. Lady and her shadow Ministers—was that there would be pressure to establish a power-sharing Government who would pave the way for a federal constitution linking Ulster to the Republic. A federal structure is the first step to complete integration with the Republic.
5.45 am
We were warned that the United States was involved. What did we find? Within a few months there was a complete about-turn. We are shoved down this road. Everything regarding Northern Ireland on which the Conservative Party stood for election has been deserted or forgotten. Now that this has been brought out into the open, we must ask where that pressure came from. Is that pressure still there? If it is not, why are the Government trying to proceed with a Bill that the right hon. Gentleman knows in his heart and mind will not work? He cannot be so blind to reality that he still believes that the Bill will work. He cannot be deaf to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South and the hon. Member for Antrim, North. One of the two Unionist parties will probably emerge from an election with a majority, and certainly the two combined will do so. That is the reality.
Does the Secretary of State really believe that those two hon. Members have been fudging their words? I do not know what the hon. Member for Antrim, North has said in private, but I do know what he has said publicly. I know what my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South has been saying both privately and publicly. If they keep close to their pronouncements, the Bill is doomed. There is no way that the Unionist parties of Northern Ireland will enter into a power-sharing coalition with Republican parties. That is what the 71 per cent. and the 51 per cent. means. It cannot mean anything else.
People have died over the question of sovereignty in Ulster for years, and it is foolish to proceed down a path that can lead to more deaths, violence and bloodshed.
The Secretary of State appeared to say earlier that he thought that Ulstermen could do better than he and his team. Most Ulstermen would not disagree with that. We would not be politicians if we did. However, if the Secretary of State is serious about putting Ulstermen in the position where they cannot do the job that he desires them to do, he should produce proposals that will allow them to do those jobs. We cannot have the half-baked nonsense in the Bill.
We are clear on what we want. It was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South earlier in the debate. We believe that the solution put forward by the Secretary of State will not work. We are clear that his solution does not embody our view of the future of Northern Ireland. Up to now the Government have consistently refused each proposal and amendment that has been put forward to improve the Bill to the point where it would have been possible to operate and make sense.
This has been a short debate, despite what might be said, because it has to be balanced with what has to be covered. Part I of the schedule relates to "general suspension", and we could have a debate as long as this one on that 17-line paragraph alone.
Part II deals with "partial suspension" and is also concerned with legislative and Executive functions. The paragraphs on Executive functions allow the Secretary of State to appoint people
under section 8(1) of the Constitution Act".
Paragraph 5(b) states that a person can be appointed
to assist the person appointed as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.
That is nothing more than jobs for the boys, because it will be possible to have a chairman—possibly even two—for each committee.
Paragraph 5(2) states:
Subsections (2), (5) and (6) of section 8 of the Constitution Act … shall not apply to any appointment".
However, section 8(2) of the Act provides:
The chief executive member shall preside over the Executive and act as Leader of the Assembly".
Therefore, he cannot be appointed. Subsection (5) states:
Two of the persons at any time holding appointments under this section (other than the chief executive member) may be persons who were not appointed from among members of the Assembly but not more than one of them shall be the head of a Northern Ireland department.
Subsection (6) provides that
any person so appointed shall not hold office for more than six months.
We could spend at least a full day debating the schedule to make sense out of it. No doubt the Minister will say that we have had a long debate and that the subject has been thoroughly explored. It has been lightly scratched, and no one can deny that. We are only skating over this issue. We could spend much more time on it, but the late hour will, unfortunately, prevent us from doing so.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is unwilling to concede the principle of majority rule. I believe that straightforward majority rule will at the end of the day be the only system that will work. Once it is coloured or moved in one direction or another, it causes greater offence to the majority of the people.
The Government have the choice of trying to educate a minority to accept that it is a political minority or giving it a veto, which in effect turns it into a majority.

Alternatively, the Govermnent can attempt a weighted majority, which only infuriates the political majority. That leads to nothing but misery and concern for everyone, and I ask the Government to think again.

Mr. John Patten: I do not think that at this time in the morning the Committee would welcone my indulging in a great technical excursus into every detail of the schedule.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Can you guide us about whether my hon. Friend is concluding the debate or merely intervening in the discussion?

The Second Deputy Chairman: All that I can say to help the hon. Gentleman is that the Minister has caught my eye, has been called and is making his speech.

Mr. Patten: The Committee will not welcome such a technical excursus into the details of the schedule. The notes on clauses—I know that many hon. Members have welcomed them—consider the workings of the schedule in some detail. It would be almost otiose for me to go through them line by line, particularly because I could not add much of substance to many points in the schedule. I am not ashamed of that. It would be odd if a Minister came to the Dispatch Box and said something radically different in content, style or opinion from the views supplied in the notes on clauses. I do not suggest that the notes on clauses are imperfect, insufficient or inadequate.
Part I, which is concerned with full devolution, has not caused us much trouble in this interesting debate. It provides that under a devolution order made under clause 2(1)(a) the existing arrangements for direct rule automatically cease. Rather more attention has been paid to part II, which takes up the greater part of the schedule and deals with the arrangements for partial devolution. That issue has excited the interest of many right hon. and hon. Members and I intend to make some points in conclusion about the issues that they raised.
The main provisions of part II concern legislative and executive functions It is important for the Committee to realise that while a partial devolution order is in force the Assembly is given unresticted legislative competence under paragraph 4 over devolved transferred matters, for example, agriculture, commerce or the environment. Transferred matters that are not devolved would remain the responsibility of Parliament. In the language of the Bill, with which we have become so familiar during long hours of consideration, those matters would be treated as reserved and the Assembly could legislate for them only with the Secretary of State's consent.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) requested me to address my attention to two points on paragraph 5. That paragraph enables the Secretary of State to appoint heads of devolved Departments under partial devolution and contains a consequential provision, by reference to the 1974 Act, that devolved Departments would no longer operate under the direction of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman asked, more than reasonably, whether the heads of the devolved Departments during partial devolution should be regarded as an integral part of the United Kingdom, subject to the same doctrines of collective responsibility as applied to United Kingdom Ministers.
I do not think that such heads of devolved Northern Ireland Departments are analogous with United Kindgom Ministers and neither do I think that they perform exactly


the same role. They will rather be part of the Government of Northern Ireland under partial devolution. Most importantly of all, they will be responsible to the Assembly, and not to the House, for the discharge of their functions. No doubt it will be for the Secretary of State to advise the Queen on whether they should be dismissed, if for example—here I turn in passing to a point raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—they had lost the confidence of the Assembly.
6 am
The basis for the appointment of the heads of Departments and for their continuance in office would be different from that applicable to Ministers in the Government of the United Kingdom. It would be a question, for example, of whether they were doing their job in the way appointed or were commanding acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland. I know that that is a contentious point for some hon. Members, but it is a point of substance in the Government's policy.

Mr. John Dunlop: Will these Ministers or heads of Departments be appointed according to their elected performance in the community, or will they be appointed irrespective of how they perform electorally? In other words, will they have the support of the people of Northern Ireland for these problems and appointments? Will that be a factor in their employment, or will they be appointed irrespective of their performance in the election?

Mr. Patten: The appointment of the heads of Departments would depend on the Assembly, which would bring forward proposals. Part and parcel of the Bill as it stands is an attempt to put the maximum opportunity in the hands of those who make up the Assembly.
The second point that the right hon. Member for Down, South asked me to address my attention to was on paragraph 6 of schedule 1.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I take it that the hon. Gentleman's answer to my first point is that these people will not be subject to collective responsibility?

Mr. Patten: They will be subject to a different form of collective responsibility, not the form that applies to United Kingdom Ministers as we know it in the House. They will be responsible for those areas of the budget that they collectively have within their power to spend, just as other Ministers of non-devolved Departments will be responsible in the first instance to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
There will have to be a time when the Secretary of State discusses issues both with the non-devolved and devolved groups of, to use shorthand, Ministers. This will be a matter for accommodation, the same sort of accommodation as has to be made within the Government of the United Kingdom in the Cabinet, with which the right hon. Gentleman is familiar.

Mr. Powell: What did the Minister mean by saying that the heads of Departments would have a different collective responsibility? The natural meaning of that would be that if there were, for example, four heads of devolved Departments, those four would act as collectivity, bound by collective responsibility, in which case it must follow that one of them answers for all since unless one answers for all, there is no meaning to collective responsibility.

Mr. Patten: The doctrine of collegiality, which the right hon. Gentleman developed about two hours ago, was an interesting one. It is clear that, as in the British constitution, so in the new Assembly there will be a period of evolution. Doubtless, the ways and means by which decisions are taken under partial devolution will be subject to that sort of accommodation.
Partial devolution inevitably means that there is a division between devolved and non-devolved Departments. In the Bill each is given its own responsibility. No Administration that I know of—certainly not that of the United Kingdom—comprises Departments that are entirely free from the need to consult other interests.
I am prepared to admit that the scope for overlap will perhaps be greater under partial devolution than under full devolution. The difference does not need to be exaggerated. Even under the Stormont system that operated until 1972, the discretion of Northern Ireland Departments to spend money was effectively constrained not only by the Northern Ireland Department of Finance but by the United Kingdom Parliament and Treasury, which decided what funds would be available to Northern Ireland.
I shall attempt to answer the second question that the right hon. Gentleman asked me to address myself to. He asked—it was a reasonable request—why in paragraph 6(2) of the schedule the words in the penultimate and ultimate lines of that sub-paragraph
or that it contains provisions creating offences or imposing penalties.
should have been provided in that way. It is to ensure that during partial devolution subordinate legislation—that is what we are dealing with—relating to devolved matters may—such as legislation sometimes does—create offences or impose penalties without requiring it to be laid at Westminster. If that did not occur I believe that there would be a doubt since the criminal law is a reserved matter under schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and only transferred matters can be devolved under devolved powers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that explanation as to why those works appear in that form in paragraph 6(2).
The last major point is the important one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) who discussed the problems that might face individuals—it is individuals in Northern Ireland with whom we are primarily concerned—seeking to gain redress from the Ombudsman during a period of rolling devolution. Paragraph 7 of the schedule deals with the reports, both of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Commissioner for Complaints in Northern Ireland, and the laying of accounts under partial devolution. The underlying principle is that reports and accounts should be laid before the Assembly if they deal with Northern Ireland Departments that have been devolved—and that seems to be only logical—and before Parliament, which seems equally logical, if they concern Departments that remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Paragraph 8 specifically requires the Assembly to establish a public accounts committee in respect of devolved Departments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire raised a point about the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Under paragraph 7 of the schedule it is clear that his reports will be laid


before—I ask my hon. Friend to think about what I am about to say—whichever legislature is responsible for the matter at the time the report is made.
That is right in principle because whichever legislature is responsible for a matter that is the subject of the Parliamentary Commissioner's report should be able to question the responsible Minister, whether the Minister is in the House of Commons or the Assembly.

Mr. Farr: Can any member of the devolved Assembly refer a matter to the Commissioner for Complaints or the Parliamentary Commissioner in the same way that a Member of Parliament may?

Mr. Patten: Yes. The position is exactly as my hon. Friend suggests. The newly elected Members of the Assembly will have those avenues open to him.

Mr. Farr: I was listening with attention, despite the hour. I heard my hon. Friend say that the Parliamentary Commissioner or the Commissioner for Complaints would reply directly to the Assembly or to Parliament, but I did not hear him say that a complaint could be intiated by an Assembly Member.

Mr. Patten: I thought that I made it clear that that possibility is there for any member of the Assembly.
Schedule 1 contains, in a technical sense, all the necessary provisions to enable either full or partial devolution orders to. The schedule is essential to the scheme of the Bill and I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. Farr: rose—

Mr. Jopling: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 124, Noes 18.

Division No. 218]
[6.11 am


AYES


Arnold,Tom
Fookes, MissJanet


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Forman,Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Garel-Jones,Tristan


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Goodlad,Alastair


Benyon,Thomas(A'don)
Gow, lan


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gray,Hamish


Best, Keith
Greenway, Harry


Biffen,Rt Hon John
Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)


Blackburn,John
Gummer,JohnSelwyn


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hampson,Dr Keith


Bowden, Andrew
Heddle,John


Boyson,Dr Rhodes
Henderson,Barry


Braine,SirBernard
Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)


Bright,Graham
Holland,Phllip(Carlton)


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Hordern, Peter


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Butcher,John
Jenkin,Rt Hon Patrick


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lang, lan


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Luce, Richard


Chapman,Sydney
Marland,Paul


Churchill,W.S.
Mates, Michael


Colvin,Michael
Mather,Carol


Cope,John
Mawhinney,DrBrian


Cormack,Patrick
Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin


Dickens,Geoffrey
Mayhew, Patrick


Dorrell,Stephen
Mellor,David


Dover,Denshore
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dunn, James A.
Mills,lain(Meriden)


Eggar,Tim
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Eyre,Reginald
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb 'gh N)
Moate, Roger





Monro,SirHector
Speller,Tony


Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Sproat,Iain


Needham,Richard
Squire,Robin


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Steen, Anthony


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stevens,Martin


Parris, Matthew
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Patten, John (Oxford)
StradlingThomas,J.


Pink, R.Bonner
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rathbone,Tim
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


RhysWilliams,SirBrandon
Thompson,Donald


Ridley,HonNicholas
Thornton,Malcolm


Ridsdale,SirJulian
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Trippier, David


Roper,John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rossi, Hugh
Waddington,David


Royle,Sir Anthony
Wakeham,John


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Waldegrave,HonWilliam


Sainsbury,Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Scott,Nicholas
Warren,Kenneth


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wells,Bowen


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Shelton,William(Streatham)
Wickenden,Keith


Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Shersby, Michael



Silvester, Fred
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Smith,Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.




NOES


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
McQuade,John


Body,Richard
Molyneaux, James


Brown,Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Paisley, Rev lan


Budgen,Nick
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Cranborne,Viscount
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Dunlop,John
Stanbrook,Ivor


Farr,John
Walker, B. (Perth)


Gardiner,George(Reigate)



Goodhart,SirPhilip
Tellers for the Noes:


Gorst,John
Mr. William Ross and


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Christopher Murphy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That this schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 105, Noes 17.

Division No. 219]
[6.22 am


AYES


Arnold,Tom
Dunn, James A.


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Eggar,Tim


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Garel-Jones,Tristan


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Goodlad,Alastair


Benyon,Thomas(A'don)
Gow, lan


Berry, Hon Anthony
Greenway, Harry


Best, Keith
Griffiths, E(B'ySt.Edm'ds)


Biffen,Rt Hon John
Gummer,JohnSelwyn


Blackburn,John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Heddle,John


Boscawen,Hon Robert
Henderson,Barry


Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)
Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)


Bowden, Andrew
Holland,Philip(Carlton)


Boyson,Dr Rhodes
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Braine,SirBernard
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bright,Graham
Lang, lan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lennox-Boyd,HonMark


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Butcher,John
Marland,Paul


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Mates, Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Mather,Carol


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Mawhinney,DrBrian


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin


Chapman,Sydney
Mayhew, Patrick


Colvin,Michael
Mellor,David


Cope,John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dickens,Geoffrey
Mills,Iain(Meriden)


Dorrell,Stephen
Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)


Dover,Denshore
Moate, Roger






Monro,SirHector
Squire,Robin


Montgomery, Fergus
Stevens, Martin


Needham, Richard
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Newton,Tony
StradlingThomas,J.


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Parris,Matthew
Temple-Morris,Peter


Patten,John (Oxford)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Prior, RtHon James
Thompson,Donald


RhysWilliams,SirBrandon
Thornton,Malcolm


Ridley,Hon Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Ridsdale,Sir Julian
Trippier,David


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Roper,John
Vaughan,Dr Gerard


Rossi, Hugh
Waddington,David


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Wakeham,John


Sainsbury,Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren,Kenneth


Shaw,SirM.(Scarborough)
Wells, Bowen


Shelton,William (Streatham)
Wells,John(Maidstone)


Shepherd,Colin (Hereford)
Wickenden,Keith


Silvester, Fred
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


Sims, Roger



Smith Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Speller,Tony
Mr. David Hunt and


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Sproat,lain





NOES


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Molyneaux,James


Body,Richard
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brown,Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Budgen,Nick
Smyth, Rev, W. M. (Belfast S)


Cranborne,Viscount
Stanbrook,Ivor


Dunlop,John
Walker, B. (Perth)


Farr,John



Gardiner,George(Reigate)
Tellers for the Noes:


Goodhart,SirPhilip
Mr. William Ross and


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Christopher Murphy.


McQuade,John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Molyneaux: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I do not feel able to accept that motion at present.

Mr. Prior: I beg to move the amendment in my name.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The first amendment that has been selected is No. 39 which is not in the name of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Could you assist the Committee with some guidance on your decision not to accept the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that you do report Progress? There are certain conventions as well as rules that extend to the decision of the Chair on this subject. As the proposition was last debated over four hours ago and the Committee has added the schedule to the Bill, will you tell us, for information and guidance, the considerations by which the Chair is governed in the decision that you have just announced?

The Second Deputy Chairman: This is a matter for the discretion of the Chair. In exercising that discretion, the Chair has available advice and precedents.

Mr. Farr: I accept your guidance, Mr. Dean, which was no doubt given after considerable thought and advice.

Can you help us by telling us when such a motion could be presented to you with the chance of a successful outcome or at least of being debated?
As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, progress has been made. We have added a substantial schedule to the Bill after four or five hours' debate, and previously in similar circumstances the Chair has nearly always accepted a motion to report progress.

The Second Deputy Chairman: We must see how we get on.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. I refer to an expression that you used in kindly replying to the point that I put to you. You said that the Chair had available to it precedents and advice. It is understood that, like the rest of us, the Chair seeks and obtains professional advice in the exercise of its functions. That is well understood, though it is not normally referred to.
The reason why I have raised with you, Mr. Dean, the expression that you used is that your reference to advice could be taken to refer, though I am sure that it was not intended to refer, to advice other than that from those who normally, and in the course of their duties, assist the Chair.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I return to my original point. This is a matter for the discretion of the Chair and I have exercised my discretion to the best of my abilitity.

Clause 3

MATTERS for CONSIDERATION BY ASSEMBLY PENDING GENERAL SUSPENSION OF DIRECT RULE

The Second Deputy Chairman: The first amendment for debate is No. 39, in page 3, line 13, leave out from 'Ireland', to end of line 17.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I wish to make to you a representation that I put in writing to the Chairman of Ways and Means some time ago. I hope that that was of assistance.
It is obvious that most of the amendments that you, Mr. Dean, have suggested should be grouped with amendment No. 39 relate substantially to, if not exactly the same topic, at least closely related aspects of the same topic. However, two of the amendments relate to different matters and cannot, therefore, conveniently be debated by the Committee in connection with the rest.
The great body of amendments raise questions of wide purport and will require thorough debate, quite apart from the two amendments and subjects to which I wish to draw attention. The first of those is amendment No. 129, which relates to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the transaction of matters affecting it by the Assembly. All the amendments relate to matters which might be dealt with or debated by the Assembly, but within that wide ambit and description I submit to you, Mr. Dean, that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is in a class by itself and that it could not be satisfactorily debated if a speech were made on that subject followed by half a dozen speeches on another subject before we returned, as fortuitously might happen, to follow the argument through so far as it affected the RUC.
Responsibility for security and the security forces is one of outstanding importance. I submit to you, Mr. Dean, that the issue can be dealt with as it deserves only if it is


discussed separately by the Committee. That is the first of the two particular subjects and amendments to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee.
Secondly, amendment No. 42 relates, to use a shorthand expression, to constituency questions. It is therefore of a different character from all the other amendments which deal with the classes of subject that might fall within the purview of the Assembly. Amendment No. 42 raises the special question of the responsibilities of hon. Members and the treatment of individual questions and problems. Again, we have a subject which is not merely distinct from the remainder but which raises entirely different considerations. Therefore, I submit that it can usefully be debated only if it is taken in separation.
I appreciate that to ungroup, if such a neologism could be formed, two of the amendments from the remainder could arguably be a measure somewhat tending to protract proceedings. I am not at all sure that that would be so. It seems more likely that, if the Committee were given the opportunity of debating and deciding separately the two amendments to which I have referred, the debate on those two subjects would be more expeditious as well as more efficient and the total time taken by the Committee might well not be substantially greater.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Dean, that that is a factor that will weigh upon your mind as occupant of the Chair in deciding the grouping that might best serve the purposes of the Committee, but I thought that it was an observation that might be overheard by others and might therefore be of some relevance to considerations other than those with which you are charged particularly.
I beg to submit to you, Mr. Dean, the proposition that you would be agreeable if the Committee disjoined amendments Nos. 129 and 42 from the group and dealt with the remainder as a group as was proposed.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. This is the first occasion on which I have ventured to speak on the Bill and I most certainly have no desire to prolong the debate unnecessarily. However, I must support what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has ventured to suggest to you. Amendments Nos. 129 and 130, which both stand in my name, appear to be somewhat different from the remaining amendments that have been grouped in the series. I suggest that they are different in three senses. First, they are specific. They refer to one organisation and one only, whereas virtually all the other amendments are of a much more general and far-reaching character.
The second difference is that they are limited. They are limited by the very nature of the subject. The debate, in respect of those amendments, can deal only with the RUC. Other amendments are not limited. Indeed, they are virtually unlimited. Thirdly, the RUC, because of its role in law and order and security, is a highly sensitive subject. It would be wrong to muddle it up with the generality of the debate if only for the reason that the right hon. Member for Down, South suggested—that it would be most inconvenient to find that an argument had been advanced about the RUC that was then lost in the wide-ranging debate about other matters, and then we had to return to it for there to be any cogency in the debate. I have no wish

to prolong the debate. I hope that you will consider some way in which we can deal with RUC-related amendments separately, Mr. Dean.

Mr. Farr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean, I should like to support the submission that has been made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) because one of the keystones of the next discussion will be the two amendments relating to the RUC in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The Committee wants a clear and simple debate—in so far as we can have a simple debate of these proceedings—on the RUC and the effects of the Bill upon it. It has been made clear by the right hon. Member for Down, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that meaningful debate on what is possibly one of the most critical aspects of the Bill is not possible if we are also to debate an assortment of subjects. In that event, we shall be chopping and changing because of the hazards of selection.
Therefore I add my plea because, by this sensible proposed course, we shall probably make quicker progress. I do not see how a Minister, even one with the capacity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, can make a meaningful reply to the group of haphazard amendments that it is proposed to discuss together. In view of the respect and admiration held by both sides of the Committee for the RUC. I urge that there be special and separate debate on these two amendments.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave the Committee a view at this stage. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who had the courtesy to give notice that he would make this proposition, has now been supported by the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and Harborough (Mr. Farr). I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means. He has fully considered the points, of which he had advance notice, but feels that it would be better to stick to the selection as on the selection list. But it will be possible to have a separate Division on amendment No. 129 and amendment No. 42 and, if there should be a request for separate Divisions on other amendments, they will be considered.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean, perhaps I might place a further consideration before you, in view of the time at which this matter is being discussed. Whether security and the role of the RUC should be discussed in the Assembly is understandably important to Labour Members. For all I know, they may have known of the suggestion that amendments Nos. 129 and 42 should be severed from the remainder of the group and dealt with at a later stage. Had they heard that on the bush telegraph which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) reminds me, is such an important part of parliamentary life, I am sure that they would have taken the view that they could come and hear that debate at a later stage.
I say that because you, Mr. Dean, will know that the appearance of total agreement within the Labour Party is no more than an appearance. A number of very significant


statements have already been made by Labour Members. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for instance, said on 28 April:
I should prefer the continuation of the present arrangement—direct rule in its present shape—rather than our bringing about an Assembly simply for the sake of creating one".—[Official Report, 28 April 1982; Vol. 22, c. 920.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am finding it difficult to know what is the point of order that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise.

Mr. Budgen: My point is that the appearance of unanimity and of support for the Government among Labour Members is no more than an appearance and that a number of Labour Members who in the past have played a consistent and distinguished role in the consideration of the affairs of Northern Ireland—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point of order? We are dealing with the selection of amendments. I have already given a ruling on that, after considering the matter. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise another matter on a point of order, I am prepared to hear it.

Mr. Budgen: It may be that I am tired and that I am thus, unhappily, not putting the point with the precision that I would wish. I was making the point that I believe that there was a genuine expectation that amendments Nos. 129 and 42 would be considered later, at a time when Labour Members would wish to demonstrate their real concern that there should not be a return to a Stormont-type structure in the new Assembly.
When you, Mr. Dean, properly invited me to draw back my remarks to this specific point, I was explaining that a number of Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Walsall, North—I also intended to quote some interesting observations by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—had expressed their opposition to the structure proposed by the Secretary of State. In their view—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already ruled on the points of order concerning the selection of amendments. The provisional selection of amendments was published many hours ago, so the Committee has had an opportunity to see it and to make representations. The right hon. Member for Down, South was courteous enough to make representations. They have been fully considered by the Chairman of Ways and Means, who feels that the original selection should stand. Therefore, no further points of order arise on that.

Mr. Budgen: My point was that it might have become known through the bush telegraph that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) intended to make that submission. No one can anticipate the effect of a submission by the right hon. Gentleman. He is famed for the learning that he brings to his submissions. There was thus at least a possibility that he might succeed in changing the Chair's mind.
May I respectfully say, Mr. Dean, that there have already been a number of occasions when the Chair has modified its preference as a result of observations from the right hon. Gentleman. I merely make the point that there

have been discussions in our debates about the need to safeguard the position of minorities. If ever there was a minority, it is the Labour Party—a non-attendng minority.

The Chairman: I have heard the points of order and I have already made it clear to the Committee three times that the Chairman of Ways and Means has given the subject careful consideration, having had notice of these matters. I have ruled that the original selection should stand. I have also made it clear that in view of the representations that have been made, separate Divisions can be taken on amendment No. 129 and amendment No. 42. If separate Divisions are required on any other amendments in the grouping such a request will be carefully considered. We must now proceed with the debate.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I hope this will help the Committee in the conduct of the debate ahead of us. We understand the ruling that you have given on the representations made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and other hon. Members, and we are grateful for the information about separate Divisions.
It is clear that the question of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is distinct and all-important because the security of the Province and the morale of the police are vital factors. Therefore, Mr. Dean, would it be possible for you to obtain from hon. Members who wish to speak an indication whether they intend to take part in the debate on this distinct and separate matter or whether they wish to speak on other amendments in the grouping? We might then have an orderly debate after my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has introduced the amendments—and we are deeply grateful to him for the opportunity to discuss this important matter. Could some arrangement be made for those hon. Members who wish to speak on the amendments relating to the Royal Ulster Constabulary to make their speeches first and the others hold back so that we can have an orderly debate?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. You have no doubt been following the debate and will know that a new factor has been introduced concerning the SDLP. The SDLP does not officially recognise the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but the Secretary of State pleads that the Unionists should enter into some sort of coalition with it.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a matter for debate. It is not a point of order for me.
In answer to the helpful suggestion made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), I think that we would get into a muddle if we tried to departmentalise a debate with a selection of amendments. All of the amendments that have been selected for debate will be in order during the course of the debate.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. It would be churlish of me not to thank you for your decision that there should be separate Divisions on the two subjects to which I drew attention.
I wish to put a further consideration that I hope you will agree is in your mind. The length of debate that will be required to cover this group of amendments is clearly related to the wide span of subjects. Inasmuch as it includes two subjects that will be voted upon separately, and to that extent are distinct in character, I hope that if


any proposition is made to shorten debate, the Chair will bear in mind the character of the debate which, as a result of your ruling, will have to span and embrace subjects as diverse as those covered in the general group by amendments Nos. 129 and 42.

7 am

The Second Deputy Chairman: I gladly assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Chair will take all these matters into account during the debate.

Mr. Farr: On a further point of order, Mr. Dean, in relation to the selection. As I said earlier, amendments Nos. 129 and 130 have been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I most definitely accept the ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means, because obviously he had the benefit of considering the letter from the right hon. Member for Down South (Mr. Powell). I have no doubt that the Chairman has excellent reasons for coming to his decision.
The group of amendments includes Nos. 129 and 130 relating to the RUC. Will an hon. Member who catches your eye be in order if he discusses and raises items contained in Judge Bennett's report on the RUC, which came out in 1978–79? [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may laugh, but Judge Bennett's report is a first-class document. It has never been properly debated in the House and is full of matters that are relevant to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
Before we begin our debate, perhaps you will confirm that we may refer to this report where appropriate and specifically relevant. I have the Bennett report with me, and parts of it are relevant to what my hon. Friend is seeking to do. May we have your assurance, Mr. Dean, that reasonable reference to the Bennett report during discussion on amendments Nos. 129 and 130 will be in order? That would be helpful to hon. Members who wish to introduce this point.

The Second Deputy Chairman: This will be a fairly wide debate because of the number of amendments that have been selected. A number of subjects are linked. It will certainly be in order to refer to all the matters that are the subject of these amendments.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On another point of order, Mr. Dean. Government amendment No. 133 seeks to change the Bill so that the Assembly can discuss reserved matters. Paragraph 5 of schedule 3 of the 1973 Act refers to:
The establishment, organisation and control of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of any other police force; the Police Authority for Northern Ireland; traffic wardens".
Will it be in order to discuss these reserved matters, and am I right in thinking that they can be discussed within the context of the Secretary of State's amendment?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is in order, otherwise it would not have been selected.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. In view of the fact that it is now after seven o'clock, that we have made some progress since the request was previously made, and that the permanent staff are due to leave their posts at 8 am to return at 2 pm, will you now consider favourably a motion that we now adjourn and report Progress?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I cannot accept that motion. The fact is that we have not made any progress.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 3, line 13, leave out from 'Ireland' to end of line 17.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 40, in page 3, line 13, leave out
'which is not an excepted or reserved matter'.
No. 129, in page 3, line 13, after 'Northern Ireland', insert
'except the organisation and operations of the Royal Ulster Constabulary'.
Government amendments Nos. 133 and 134.
No. 130, in page 3, line 17, at end insert
'unless it is a matter pertaining to the organisation or operations of the Royal Ulster Constabulary'.
No. 143, in page 3, line 17, at end insert
'which shall include the accounts of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.'.
No. 42, in page 3, line 17, at end, insert—
'(2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) shall not extend to any complaints or representations made by any member of the public in respect of his personal circumstances.'.
No. 144, in page 3, line 33, at end insert
'and—

(b) the Assembly shall present to the Secretary of State an Annual Report on the accounts referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section.'.
No. 145, in page 3, line 33, at end insert
'and—

(c) the Assembly shall present to the Secretary of State an Annual Report on any transferred matters for which an order has been made under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 above.'.

Government amendment No. 135.

Mr. Powell: Since you gave your ruling, Mr. Dean, on the manner of handling the amendments in this group, I have been turning over in my mind what might be the most convenient way of presenting to the Committee the amendments that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends and of presenting views upon the amendments that stand in the names of other hon. Members. It occurred to me that perhaps it would be most convenient to take a complete conspectus of all the amendments and, when they have been set out on the table, to come back along the row and deal with them one by one.
However, a more simple and convenient way may be to take the first amendment, deal thoroughly with the various aspects that it raises—although they are overlapped by amendments in the names of other hon. Members—move successively to the other amendments, and deal with each subject in that order.
Amendment No. 39 would take out of the first subsection the prohibition upon the Assembly of considering an accepted or reserved matter. It could also remove the power of the Secretary of State to refer to the Assembly an accepted or reserved matter, or any other, and therby enable the Assembly to consider it. Even on the narrow ground of the first amendment, there are two distinct aspects with which I shall deal in order.
The first is the removal of the prohibition upon the Assembly of considering suo moto matters that are accepted or reserved, That brings us straight to the nature of the Assembly that would be elected under the 1973 Act but elected for the purposes of this Bill. That nicety would escape the attention of the Members elected to the


Assembly. It is a fact of life that, whatever we write into the Bill, the Assembly will debate and consider what it pleases. Any attempt to enforce upon it the limitations that we wish to put in the Bill will be ineffective. Assembly Members will say that, whether they like it or not, they have been elected at large by the people of the Province upon a different franchise to Members of Parliament. They have been elected upon a much more generous scale and they believe that whatever they wish to consider, to debate and to resolve—it will be upon Northern Ireland—they shall be entitled to do so.
I do not think that it will be found practicable with an Assembly of that sort to vest in the presiding officer sufficient powers for a limitation of this drastic character to be enforced.

Sir Philip Goodhart: How does the right hon. Gentleman envisage the new Assembly deciding what it pleases?

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member's question is one that has been raised before in these debates, and it is a difficult one. Its difficulty strengthens the assertion that I am making that the notion that we, by putting words into the clause, can put limitations into the proceedings of the Assembly is misconceived. It will, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) has, for the second time, pointed out, be difficult enough to envisage how the Assembly, without an Executive, can order its business. I presume that it is not beyond the wit of man for such a body to create a business committee and to entrust that committee with the duty of marshalling an order paper.
I am not sure that anything as simple as that would be found to be satisfactory for the quite remarkable body that, if the Bill were to be put into effect, would assemble at Stormont. That difficulty is a consequence of the anomalous nature of an Assembly which is not, or not initially, supporting an Executive. Perhaps it is difficult for hon. Members with the history of the House and with the habits that that history has created, quite to envisage what the difficulty would be.
This place originated from the demands and the requirements of the Executive. It is the place where the Crown speaks to the representatives of the people, in particular, where the Crown makes demands or requests to the representatives. Our first debates automatically arose, and our first Order Paper was automatically constituted by the purposes for which the Crown had summoned us. These were the reasons, the Crown explained in its initial address, why the Crown had sent for us. We proceeded to consider the Crown's purposes since that is what we were sent for.
Soon we began to connect with the satisfaction of those demands, the presentation of our petitions. That led to something of much greater difficulty. The ordering of petitions and the arrangements for them to be dealt with by the House of Commons was a major part of the procedure of the House, during a number of centuries.
I think that I am not mistaken, although I have not sought to verify my recollections for the debate, that it was only in the last century that we ceased to appoint triers for the affairs of Gascony at the beginning of each Session, rather than Parliament. The hon. Member for Beckenham made a point that helps us to illuminate the inherently anomalous nature—which has nothing in common with

this Assembly to which we are accustomed—of the Assembly that we are creating in this part of the Bill. It is an Assembly that is not merely not the creature of the needs of an Executive but is not supporting an Executive, and to that extent has no necessary business to transact.
I am therefore grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for Beckenham, which has strengthened my case and I am sorry if, in dealing with it, I was led into some degree of digression. It is a digression that is relevant to the main point that I am making in the amendment on which I seek to persuade the Committee. In practice, whether we like it or not, and very often we and the Government will not like it, the Assembly will debate whatever it pleases. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Assembly, meeting on a day when there have been a series of outrages throughout the Province, discovers that what it wants to say about those outrages trenches upon an accepted or reserved matter, will then keep its mouth shut, he is mistaken. That Assembly will debate and resolve as it thinks fit.
Although we might regard that as a rather contumelious and tumultuary procedure, viewed from our point of view, it is not difficult for us to have sympathy with a body which, being elected and constituted, says "Now we will decide and nobody else will decide what we debate." True, this will not be a sovereign Assembly in the sense in which Parliament is sovereign. We shall later be discussing the ways in which the sovereignty of this Parliament in all parts of the United Kingdom can the more clearly be established and asserted in the terms of the Bill.
7.15 am
Although the Assembly that we are creating will not be, like ourselves, sovereign, make no mistake, it will share some of our characteristics. It will be unmistakably a child—I shall not enter into the details of the parentage—of the House of Commons. As such it will undoubtedly assert what it will regard as its inherent right, the right to debate what it pleases and not to be told, even by the statute creating it, let alone by any other external authority, what it may talk about and what it may not.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: On the parentage of the Assembly, would it be fanciful to suggest that one parent might be the Northern Ireland Assembly and the other parent the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention?

Mr. Powell: I had in mind a number of alternative genealogies. I thought that it might be out of Dublin by the Foreign Office. There are all sorts of parentages with which, if we allowed ourselves this metaphorical sport, we might illustrate our views as to the nature of the proposition that the Bill has placed before us. I will not be tempted in that direction.
I shall revert to the first amendment, the one that I am moving. The purpose of the first part is to prevent this Parliament from making a fool of itself by inserting in the Bill words that will be of no effect, and to warn those who create this Assembly that they will be mistaken if they think that they will limit the scope of its debates. They may allow it no powers, but one thing that they cannot prevent it from doing—one thing that I have noticed it is difficult to prevent Ulster people doing—is talking. And talk it will.
The second half of the amendment might appear to be contradictory of the first, but it is not so. Paragraph (b) enables the Secretary of State to refer to the Assembly any


matter, including an excepted or reserved matter. It might seem that, having said that the Assembly will debate anything it wanted, it would be reasonable to allow paragraph (b) to stand because paragraph (b) says that if the Secretary of State asks it to debate an excepted or reserved matter then it can do so. On closer examination it will be seen to be equally derogatory for us to include a provison which says "Ah, but the Secretary of State can give permission" when it is permission to do something that, as I have already explained, this Assembly, like it or not, will do anyhow.
Largely, paragraph (b) is either otiose or derogatory, and my hon. Friends and I consider that it is better away than in the subsection. Paragraph (b) does something in addition to purporting to give the Assembly permission to discuss excepted or reserved matters referred to it by the Secretary of State. It sets up an alternative form of machinery of debate upon a reference by the Secretary of State.
The question posed by the hon. Member for Beckenham still haunts me because, remembering that we give a First Reading to the Outlawries Bill after Black Rod has struck his Rod upon our Doors, I wonder exactly how the questions referred by the Secretary of State will find their place upon that Order Paper which is such a puzzle both to the hon. Member for Beckenham and to myself.
We have arrangements and procedures in the House germane to our origins and our purpose which secure that Ministers of the Crown and the needs of the Crown have priority. Indeed, things have come to such a pass that hardly anything which does not originate one way or another from the Crown can easily get a hearing and an airing in the House. That will not be so with the Assembly. We must envisage not only that the Assembly will debate what it pleases, whether or not it is referred by the Secretary of State, but that it will not necessarily be in a hurry to debate anything which is referred to it by the Secretary of State. For example, it might decide that a debate should be adjourned, perhaps for some little time or perhaps for a considerable time if the subject does not please it, if it is not interested in it or if it does not want to debate it.
There is another objection to paragraph (b) which goes to another of the characteristics of the Assembly which it is necessary to understand. The Committee will understand only by dint of debating clause 3 as exhaustively as I hope shall be permitted. Unless it is debated exhaustively and every element surveyed, we shall set up a body without a full understanding of what we are doing.
Paragraph (b) draws attention to the fact that, the Assembly having no responsibility for excepted or reserved matters by definition, the Secretary of State shall have the power to refer to the Assembly matters for which the Assembly will have no responsibility. I am not sure whether the Committee should accept that combination. It is one thing to say "Here are matters which in due course it is hoped by process of rolling or direct devolution will come within the Assembly's responsibility and that before that happens, or while it is happening, the Assembly may debate them, although it is not responsible."
It is entirely different to pick upon subjects on which devolution is not envisaged at an early stage, and say that the Secretary of State can go to the Assembly and get an opinion upon those subjects. If those are excepted or reserved subjects or subjects which it is deliberately

considered ought not to be within the purview of a devolved Assembly, then, if the Secretary of State wants advice, I suggest that reference to an Assembly which is not to have authority for them is not the correct way to go about it. If the Secretary of State should say that there is no harm in having a consultative body to which he can refer any question that is bothering him, then I tell him that the attempt to combine a consultative body of that kind with a deliberative, public, elected body of the sort of this Assembly is a very odd proposal.
Of course, Ministers in all sorts of circumstances, and very properly, have recourse to advisory bodies. They select those advisory bodies in the light of the subjects on which they require advice. They constitute them with care. The proceedings of those bodies are carefully regulated and are either confidential or, if not confidential, are duly placed on record in a recognised manner. But that will not be the case with the debating Assembly which will be set up under the Bill.
I advise the Secretary of State against having recourse by way of consultation to the Assembly, particularly on matters which are excepted or reserved; I would not object to it so much if they were matters in any case within the purview of the Assembly and intended to be devolved to it.
Summarising so far on the first amendment—this applies to the other amendments which go to the same or related subjects—vie have to recognise what we are doing; we are bringing into existence a body which will, at any rate initially, be in the full sense of the term irresponsible and which will debate what it wishes to debate and resolve what it wishes to resolve.
We shall come later and on a later group of amendments to consider the manner in which the resolutions, decisions and views of the Assembly are to be recorded. At this stage I should say, because it is connected with the inherent irresponsibility of this body, that it is unsatisfactory for an elected body of this kind to deliberate without its decisions being matters of record. There is some provision later in the clause for the recording of resolutions and for a specific written report to be rendered by the Assembly, but I am saying something wider than that and something different from that, namely—and I appeal to the general sense of our own proceeding—that there is something inherently objectionable in an elected Assembly debating without being on record as to its debate and without its resolutions taking a form in which they themselves are on record and are readily available.
That brings me to the next aspect of the Assembly to which my hon. Friends and I wish to draw attention, namely, its relation to this House of Commons and to that part of the House of Commons which consists of Members of Parliament elected to represent constituencies in Northern Ireland.
7.30 am
I pose the following question more generally than in the framework of subsection (2) of the clause. Let us suppose that the Assembly debates, and comes to a resolution on, a matter which falls or may fall to the House to decide. What is the standing of the Assembly's resolution with the House? What is the standing of hon. Members for Northern Ireland constituencies in the House in relation to the deliberations and. conclusions of that Assembly?
Let no hon. Member be too hasty to say that this is the sovereign House of Parliament and shall therefore take no


notice of what the Assembly says and resolves. There will be two disagreeable consequences if one attempts to say that.
First, the Assembly will soon ask why, if it is the principle of the House to take no notice of it, did the House bring the Assembly into existence. It will ask why it is deliberating and passing resolutions if the House and Parliament take no notice of it.
We might retreat a little and say that we will take some notice of the Assembly. I regret that that is no good at all. A deliberative Assembly, the resolutions and opinions of which have been ignored by the House, is unlikely to be gratified by being told that some account is being taken of its resolutions; that the House has even managed to get hold of some newspaper reports of some of the things that were said in the course of debate; and that the House took some notice but came to its own decision.
The next stage, as the House reflects upon its relationship with the Assembly and its proceedings, is to say that it has set up an elected Assembly; it did not have to, but is did; it caused it to be elected and it considers it to be an Assembly that should take responsibility for a whole range of legislation and administration in the province—surely the decisions of that Assembly should be prima facie binding upon the House.
I do not know how agreeable or disagreeable any of those three gradations will appear to be, either to the House or to the Assembly.
I then look specially at the circumstances of hon. Members of this House. An hon. Member, for whatever part of the Kingdom he sits, is elected as an individual to participate in the debates and decisions of the House upon his own responsibility. He is not a delegate but a representative. He is a plenipotentiary for the duration of a parliament. He is entitled—nay, it is his honour—to go to his constituents and say: "Thus have I done upon my judgment; because I am your representative and you gave me that power when you made me a Member of Parliament".
Under the Bill, a Member's constituency—supposing that he is one of the new 17—will be electing five other representatives to sit together with the rest of the 85 up on the hill at Stormont. How is the Member of Parliament and his constituents to deal with that? Do his constituents accept that, although they have elected five Members of the Assembly, their Member of Parliament is still, as before, their plenipotentiary representative, called upon to do them a service of his judgment and conscience, but not their delegate?
Or are they to say, however mistakenly "But you are one. You have a lot of things to think about, a lot of concerns, and a lot of pressures are brought to bear on you in that distant Westminster to which you go, and we have five other representatives whom we have elected. It is true that we have elected them on a different system of proportional representation, but they are still representatives whom we have elected, although most of us did not vote for most of them, thanks to the peculiarities of proportional representation. They have gone off and joined the representatives of all the other constituencies in a body which has nothing else to do but to talk about our affairs and come to certain resolutions"?
Our constituents might well say "How can you disregard, how dare you disregard, what authority do you

have to disregard, the decisions of the Assembly and prefer your own judgment, combined with the judgment of your peers in the House of Commons?"
From the first day of its existence, the very creation of this Assembly alters the relationship of Parliament with Ulster, and the relationship of the Members of Parliament for Ulster constituencies with their constituencies. It therefore alters the relationship of Members of Parliament for Ulster constituencies with the rest of the House of Commons. As yet, we do not revert to being the second class citizens that we used to be before 1972, but we shall be different from all our colleagues in the House in this respect, that when they go back to Yorkshire, Somerset, or wherever it may be, they will not be confronted with five other people who say "We, too, are the representatives of your constituents, and we do not agree with what you have been saying and doing. We shall hold you up to public obloquy. You should have listened to us. We are the people who know, and, anyhow, there are five of us to one of you".
No other Member of Parliament from any other part of the United Kingdom—the Orkney and Shetland Islands, or anywhere else—will be subject to that experience, but we shall be. Every time that there is a debate—perhaps, not just on Northern Ireland—and we contribute to that debate, we shall contribute to it with diminished authority.
Let not the right hon. Gentleman therefore imagine that this House of Commons will remain unscathed and unaltered by the creation of the Assembly, even—or especially—an Assembly without responsibilities or powers, except the power to talk and to reach conclusions about any subject that enters its head.
I come now to the matter to which amendment No. 42 relates, and that is the relationship of a Member of this House to his individual constituents. It is the pride of Members of this House that, in the last resort, in any matter of administration as opposed to law, a Member is ultimately the person who safeguards his individual constituents vis-a-vis the Executive. He is their last recourse, their ultimate recourse, and it is part of his crown of honour that that is his relationship to his constituents. That is as much so now in Northern Ireland since 1972 as in any other part of the United Kingdom. That it is so in Northern Ireland has been, and can still be, of great benefit in that Province in the peculiar circumstances of that Province.
In the Province it is the duty of every Member of Parliament who is doing his duty—nearly all of them do do their duty—to say to every person in his constituency, regardless of his religion, regardless of his political affiliations, regardless of any other considerations "I will serve you and I will see that you have your rights and equitable and fair treatment as I would if you were any other constituent, as I would if you were living in any other part of the United Kingdom." It has been something that Ulster has not enjoyed since 1922, which it has enjoyed since 1972—to have in each constituency a person who has that unlimited, unrestricted and undifferentiated duty towards all his constituents.
He can exercise this power because we are accorded privileges by Ministers. I do not mean privileges in the technical sense of the term, but I mean that we are accorded special treatment. We are accorded special treatment for a very good reason—as Members of the House we can make ourselves unpleasant if we are not. The House has provided procedures whereby we can make


ourselves unpleasant or not as the case may be but, at any rate, can bring matters affecting our constituencies and individuals to public attention, to parliamentary attention and to ministerial attention.
Our access to Ministers is part of our access to the House. The two hang together. Our privileges as Members, our access to Ministers, our rights vis-a-vis the Executive on behalf of our constituents, are one seamless garment.
You may not be aware, Mr. Dean, that in the days of the constitutional convention, which existed from 1975 to 1976, it was the set policy—I do not say of Ministers but of those behind them—to ensure that as far as possible persons who were elected to the convention were treated as Members of Parliament would be treated in putting forward individual cases and problems. That was done quite deliberately as part of the purpose with which this legislation has been promoted, to weaken and eventually to destroy the connection between Ulster and the House, which is the essence of the Union.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has performed an imperishable service to the House and to the Committee by placing on the record at an early stage of our proceedings the fact that this intention was known, apprehended and warned of inside his party before his party acceded to office.
What will be the position of Members of Parliament in relation to Members of the Assembly? A constituent has a perfect right to go to anyone. We have no monopoly over the appeal of our constituents. He can go to a minister of religion. He can go to the citizen's advice bureau. He can go to the local office of a Department. He can go to his local councillor. No problem arises from any of those courses of application because when he goes to his local councillor, the only one who is a member of an elected body among the array that I have mentioned, he goes knowing, and the councillor knowing, that unless it is a matter within the discretion of the council, in which case it is a matter for the councillor and not for a Member of Parliament, he is going as he might go to any other person, not armed with any special authority or status in the matter but as he might go to a friend or to the citizen's advice bureau.

Viscount Cranborne: What was the experience of Ulster Members at the time of the constitutional convention? Did they find that the privileges accorded to members of the convention impinged on the authority and privileges of Ulster Members in the House?

Mr. Powell: Of course they did. Suppose the hon. Member was one of four Members for Dorset, South and his constituents went to any or all of those Members. Does he think that he would be in the same position to serve his constituents as he is now? Does he think that his status and privilege as an hon. Member would thereby be diminished? The hon. Gentleman will see what will be the consequences if steps are not taken to prevent those elected to the Assembly, who are responsible for nothing qua election to the Assembly, being dealt with by the Northern Ireland Office and Ministers as if they were members of a responsible Assembly and were, as we are, the plenipotentiary parliamentary representatives of their constituencies.
That matter must be cleared up because it affects, potentially undermines, and is intended to undermine, the

relationship between this House and Northern Ireland. It necessarily strikes at the nexus between constituents, hon. Members, Parliament and Government which is of the essence of the Union.
Those who wish the Assembly to be brought into existence are those who have wished to see the significance of the parliamentary link of Ulster with the United Kingdom diminished by every available means and from every possible direction.
The Government ought to tell us that it is their view, whether or not they give statutory form to it—as I believe that they should—that Ministers will continue to have the same exclusive relations with hon. Members for Northern Ireland as they hive at present with those hon. Members and with the hon. Members for all other constituencies in the United Kingdom. That is a perfectly intelligible request; everybody understands what it means and the answer should be given clearly and, if posible, should be included in the text of the clause before it is added to the Bill.
Two major conclusions derive from the cursory acquaintance that the amendments have created with the clause. The first is the consequences of an irresponsible debating body being set up in Northern Ireland by election. The second is the consequences for this House of Commons and for Ulster as part of the United Kingdom by virtue of the parliamentary Union and the creation of this Assembly. We can to some extent guard against these consequences and I believe that we should do so as far as possible, but I have in candour to say that I believe that some of the consequences are inherent, as indeed those consequences were intended and are part of the motivation of creating the Assembly.
The other major matter raised by this group of amendments comes from the amendments of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). With apologies to the hon. Gentleman for anticipating anything that he might say, I must refer to the amendments because they illustrate with particular acuteness these characteristics and the characteristic consequences of the creation of the Assembly.
The Assembly is not, at any rate for the foreseeable future—the Secretary of State will contradict me if this is not so in his opinion—to be responsible for the security forces in Ulster, especially for the police forces in Ulster. It follows that debates on those subjects and resolutions on them in the Assembly would be irresponsible in the strictest sense of the term.
That may not matter so much if it happens to be housing or VAT. I choose one "transferable" and one "excepted" for the purposes of my argument. It might be a nuisance and it might be an irrelevance if VAT were debated and a decision upon it recorded by the Assembly. It might be a nuisance if a different point of view were taken by the Assembly upon housing, for example, from that which might be arrived at by a debate in the House in which Northern Ireland Members participated.
There is no comparison between those consequences and the consequences of an elected body debating and resolving upon the reserved matter of the policing of the Province. For it would be regarded and what it said would be regarded by the people generally, and would be publicised, as if it were authoritative and responsible, which it could not and was not intended to be.
Endless harm and misunderstanding would arise if without responsibility the Assembly were able to debate


and make resolutions upon that matter. It will be understood that I am not considering the circumstances in which the House of Commons has decided to devolve the policing of Ulster to an Ulster Assembly. If and when that happened different considerations would apply because by definition that would then be a sensible Assembly which was answerable for the consequences of its actions and of its resolutions. Unless and until that happens, the debate and decision upon those matters by the Assembly will be, in the very worst sense of the term, irresponsible.
That leads us back to the fundamental insight into the harm which we do, the mischief that we set on foot, by creating an elective representative Assembly with no responsibilities—not quite no functions—and the House of Commons knows exactly what is meant by "responsibilities". It is an Assembly to which nobody is responsible in the sense that the right hon. Gentleman is responsible to the House. It is a constitutional monstrosity. As a constitutional monstrosity it will avenge itself on the people who perpetrated it. I would not so much mind that because they might simply have got their desserts. But as so often happens when constitutional monstrosities are perpetrated, it will also avenge itself upon the people of Northern Ireland. They will be the prime sufferers in the long run and they are the people for whom we are responsible.
This is our first contact with the clause. I was not trying in any way to expand on the propositions, but I hope that my endeavour to illustrate the force of several of the amendments to clause 3 that are in the first group has shown the tremendous importance of the clause and the gravity of the debate that is to follow.

Mr. Prior: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene at this stage to give some preliminary views on some of the amendments, including the Government amendments, and to say that I shall try to intervene again towards the end of the debate when hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), will have had a chance to express their views.
I should have thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we continue with the debate for perhaps a little more than one hour and then to seek to report Progress and continue the debate in a fresher frame of mind when we meet again later today. At this juncture, I shall merely follow the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) with, as he called them, preliminary remarks. I suggest that his comments were rather more than preliminary.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sure that I am at one with the whole Committee in appreciating the helpfulness of the right hon. Gentleman's intervening at this stage. He will appreciate that a considerable debate will have to follow the intervention that he is about to make. No doubt other opinions will be perceptible, but, if we are to break somewhere in the debate, it would involve the least interruption of the continuity of the debate if we were to break after the right hon. Gentleman resumes his seat so that when we resume we can have a continuous debate, running right through to the wind-up speech by the right hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that that is an unappreciative suggestion. It will probably commend itself to the Committee. If that indication reaches him, I hope that he will feel able to accede.

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman always sets out to be as helpful as he can, although I am not sure that he is particularly helpful in this regard. We have made little progress in the four long days that we have had in Committee. We have made little progress in the past 16 hours. I am naturally anxious that we should make more progress. I had not intended to make a long speech in reply to the right hon. Gentleman at this stage. I had hoped and still hope that this will allow contributions to be made by other members of the Committee before we adjourn this morning. I recognise, of course, that I shall have to return to the Committee later in the day to answer the other points that will be raised.
8 am
Many, if not all, of the right hon. Gentleman's objections to the clause would apply to any devolved Assembly set up in Northern Ireland. I find that position difficult to assess, as I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's party is committed to devolved Government. His views about the relationship between any Assembly in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom Parliament would apply to any devolved Government. Similarly, his view of the relationship between Ulster Members of Parliament here and in the Assembly would apply to any devolved Administration.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prior: I will give way in a moment.
To that extent, the right hon. Gentleman once more makes the case for total integration.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.

Mr. Prior: I think that he does, as he talked again of Yorkshire and of the attitude that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) might take if he returned to his constituency and found that he had to deal with five other Members. That is the point of the right hon. Gentleman's case.
In that view, the right hon. Gentleman is at odds with almost all other Members of Parliament representing Ulster here and all the political parties in Ulster which are seeking devolved government. The right hon. Gentleman has left us in no doubt that he is an integrationist. He is against devolved Government. He believes—wrongly, in my view—that it weakens the Union. He then goes on to give his reasons, saying that there are conspiracies in the Northern Ireland office, the Foreign Office, the Pentagon or wherever designed to have just that effect.
I do not take that view. I believe that a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland would help to strengthen the Union. I have given my reasons for that on a number of occasions. I accept, however, that it will be some time before that is likely to come about. On the other hand, as I have also said on a number of occasions, there is at present a vacuum in the political life of Northern Ireland. The purpose of the Bill and particularly of clause 3 is to seek to fill that vacuum at any rate partially.
I recognise that the proposal is not perfect and that there are great difficulties in this concept. If I had not realised that before, I should certainly have realised it now,


although I realised it all along, of course. I must also reckon, however, that here are even greater difficulties in doing nothing. I do not say that that is the right hon. Gentleman's view, as he would go for total integration, but I do not believe that direct rule is any long-term answer. Nor do I believe, given the circumstances of Northern Ireland, that it would prove acceptable to the people there.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I fear that I must have failed, despite my endeavours, to make my arguments. Nothing that I said in my speech would apply to a devolved Parliament and a devolved Administation. Everything that I said arises because clause 3 deals with an Assembly that has no responsibilities, to which no Executive is responsible and that has no legislative responsibilities.
We can conduct a debate about the consequences of a devolved Assembly, legislative and executive, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman to believe that my arguments are directed to clause 3 because it deals with an Assembly without responsibilities. Those are the implications that I sought to deal with.

Mr. Prior: I have taken the right hon. Gentleman's point, but he must take the point that many of his arguments that are directed towards an Assembly that he says has no responsibility would also apply to an Assembly that did have responsibility. He has based much of his argument on the relationship that he maintains exists between Ulster Members and the United Kingdom Parliament. That relationship would undoubtedly be disturbed and changed by any fresh Assembly set up in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman cannot divorce one from the other. He is making the total integrationist case. Although he would argue that the Assembly is a body without responsibility and, therefore, that it can have a particular reference to the relationship between the House and the Assembly as it is at present constituted in its early stages, it does not alter the fact that his argument on integration is still, to all intents and purposes, the same.

Mr. Body: Would it clarify the argument about what the Unionists want if it were made clear that those Unionists who ask for devolved government did so in terms of majority rule, which is not available and which my right hon. Friend would not give them? Therefore, the Unionists are forced back either to direct rule or to that more democratic form of direct rule that, for want of a better word, we call integration.

Mr. Prior: That is a point of view that I have discussed with the Official Unionists on a number of occasions. It is not by any means a fact because there are many Unionists who recognise that they cannot have the old straightforward majority rule of Stormont and they are prepared to accept some other arrangement in order to have back devolved powers in Ulster. They are perfectly entitled to do so, and that is what we are trying to provide for in this legislation.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Prior: I shall not give way now. We need to make progress and I have already given way twice in the space of about four minutes. I shall continue for a while before giving way again.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. In view of the fact that since I last raised the matter one hour and

two minutes ago we have made definitive progress on the road towards clause 3, would you consider accepting a motion to report Progress?

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot interrupt a speech for that purpose.

Mr. Farr: Can I do that on a point of order?

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot raise that matter in the middle of a speech.

Mr Prior: I accept the definition that the right hon. Gentleman has given to his amendments, and hope to explain why they are not acceptable to the Government. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if set out what clause 3 seeks to do.
The clause seeks to provide for the functions that may be exercised by the Assembly before either full or partial devolution is effected. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out it is a clause of considerable importance. Indeed, it represents one of the major innovations in the Bill, as it provides that the Assembly shall have a vitally important scrutinising, monitoring and consultative role even before full or partial devolution can come about.
Clause 3(1) provides that the Assembly may on its own initiative discuss any matter within the transferred category and shall also consider any matter, whether transferred, reserved or accepted, referred to it by the Secretary of State. Clause 3(1) was drafted in this way because it seemed right that, before devolution, the Assembly should concentrate on those matters that would be within its unrestrictive legislative competence after devolution.
If there were pressures to discuss a law and order issue—in Northern Ireland terms this is a vital issue—the Secretary of State could refer that issue to the Assembly under clause 3(1)(b).
This was a matter on which I reflected further in the light of the points made on Second Reading and in representations from Northern Ireland parties. I believe that it is right to make a change. The amendments in my name go a long way towards meeting the points that were put to me and which are expressed in other amendments that we are discussing.
I hope that I can convince the Committee that these amendments represent a significant and realistic attempt to meet genuine comment.
I fully appreciate that law and order issues are of great importance to both sides of the community in Northern Ireland and that the Assembly will wish to ventilate its concerns and views in this area. It is for that reason that I have tabled amendments Nos. 133 and 134. They will permit the Assembly to discuss reserved matters, including the vitally important question of law and order, of its own volition and without any reference from the Secretary of State, although the power of the Secretary of State to refer matters in this area to the Assembly under clause 3(1)(b) will remain undiminished by the amendments that I have proposed.
It is not, however, the Government's intention in tabling these amendments to blur the distinction between transferred and reserved matters. This is, and will remain, more than merely technical. On transferred matters, it is hoped that the Assembly will be preparing itself for taking over full responsibility. I stress that. The purpose of the


Assembly in its early stages is to prepare for what we hope will be full responsibility, although I personally believe that it has an important role to play long before that is reached.
Where the Assembly expresses a clear view on a transferred matter and that view clearly has the support of representatives of all sections of the community, there may well be circumstances—in fact, I think that there will be—in which I expect this House to have full regard to what the Assembly is saying, even though hon. Members might take a different view.
That is not a particularly unusual situation. It is perfectly possible and likely that from time to time the Assembly will come into conflict with both the Secretary of State and his Ministers before devolution, after partial devolution even with the Ministers of the Assembly or at any time with hon. Members. That is a problem that we must face in our relationship with any Northern Ireland Assembly. It does not lead me to the view that, because we shall face difficulties, we should not make the attempt. It leads me to believe that the position in Northern Ireland is different and requires different solutions. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to lead them through the process to full devolved government.
8.15 am
However, law and order has always fallen into a special category. While I remain ready to listen to views and suggestions, I must make it clear that the responsibility rests with the Secretary of State. It is not only that law and order matters may be more fundamentally divisive than transferred matters, but there are limits to the discussion of law and order in an Assembly. Some security matters, for obvious reasons, should not be made public, but going beyond security in that sense there is a well-founded view that operational matters are the responsibility of the chief officer of police and that neither Ministers nor Parliament should seek to give directions to the chief officer in the exercise of that responsibility. The amendments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds are relevant to that point. I shall deal with them after he has spoken later today.
To mark the distinction between transferred and reserved matters, the Government's amendments provide that the reports produced by the Assembly on its own initiative on reserve matters should not automatically be laid before Parliament. Such a report, which after devolution would be within the responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Administration and the Assembly, should be laid before the House as clause 3(4) provides.

Sir Philip Goodhart: May I put to my right hon. Friend the question that I put to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) a few moments ago? How will the Assembly decide the matters that it wishes to discuss?

Mr. Prior: The Assembly will have the right to discuss all transferred matters and now we are giving it the right to discuss all reserved matters. Many of the reserved matters will tend to drift fairly wide, but that is a matter for the Assembly. The presiding officer of the Assembly, advised by a clerk, must take into account what the legislation says about how wide its debates can go. I suspect that some Members of the Assembly may wish to keep the debates in reasonable order.
We are doing an injustice to the likely Members of the Assembly if we always put the worst connotations on the way in which they are likely to behave.

Mr. Budgen: In default of a Supreme Court or other judicial body, what happens if there is a dispute between the Assembly and Parliament as to the matters to be discussed by the Assembly? Is there any method by which, if the Secretary of State or the House collectively decide that the Assembly wishes to extend its powers without lawful authority, it can be prevented from doing so?

Mr. Prior: If my hon. Friend does not know by now that the Assembly is an advisory Assembly with no powers, he has not been listening to the debates on the Bill over the past 60 hours or so.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Prior: In so far as there is any dispute between the Assembly, which has no powers and the House, which at that stage still retains the power, the House is sovereign. This is a non-point. I am rather surprised to find my hon. Friend, who is a lawyer of some distinction, raising that point.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Prior: I shall not give way—I wish to get on a bit.

Mr. Budgen: My right hon. Friend is attacking me and ought to give me the chance to reply.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) knows that if the Secretary of State does not give way he cannot intervene.

Mr. Prior: Before I gave way to my hon. Friend I was discussing the reserve matters that would not automatically be laid before Parliament.
Any report that the Assembly decided to produce on reserve matters would be in a rather different category because, even after devolution, responsibility for reserve matters would remain with the Secretary of State and this Parliament. Accordingly, I do not believe that there should be any obligation on the Secretary of State to place such orders before Parliament. Hence the third amendment that I have tabled, No. 135.
It leaves the Secretary of State with the discretion whether or not to lay before Parliament reports on "reserved" matters which the Assembly has prepared of its own volition.
Nor do I believe, however, that it would be right to amend clause 3(1)(a) to enable the Assembly to discuss "excepted" matters. These are matters which in the Government's view should be permanently the responsibility of this Parliament, unlike "reserved" matters which could be devolved in due course if a durable and stable system of Government, were established in Northern Ireland. There is thus an important distinction between "excepted" and "reserved" matters. It may be that, exceptionally, it will be right for the Assembly to discuss an "excepted" matter, but that would not be ruled out because I could refer such a matter to the Assembly under clause 3(1)(b).
Amendment No. 39 would remove clause 3(1)(b) which permits the Secretary of State to refer any matter affecting Northern Ireland to the Assembly for its consideration. I regard this as an important provision because the Secretary of State may well need the benefit of the Assembly's


advice on a wide range of subjects. I am convinced that the operation of direct rule can be substantially improved by an informed input from the Assembly.
I stress the point that this could help to improve direct rule as we know it. This is what the provisions of clauses 3 and 4 taken together are designed to achieve. As hon. Members will know, clause 4 deals with the Committee system.
The power contained in clause 3(1)(b) is an important part of this scheme. Moreover, as I have said, it would be the means by which the Assembly could, albeit exceptionally, discuss "excepted" matters. Any report produced as a result of a reference to the Assembly under this provision would be automatically laid before Parliament. I believe that this provision could be of benefit both to Parliament and to the Assembly, as well as to the Secretary of State, and that it should be retained.
The Committee will also understand that we cannot support amendment No. 42 tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and his colleagues which would prevent the Assembly from discussing any complaints or representations made by any member of the public in respect of their personal circumstances. It is not just on grounds of principle, because the Bill is before all things a "permissive" Bill, as the right hon. Member for Down, South put it in our discussion of clause 1. It is because the amendment would prevent the Assembly from discharging an essential element of any representative, elected body's role. It would deny them their essential duty of representing and protecting the individual interests of their constituents. That is not just a point for an Assembly that is, as it were, an advisory body with scrutinising and committee obligations and so on. It would be the position, as the right hon. Gentleman has fairly stated, in any devolved Assembly. There would be bound to be a different relationship between a constituent and a Member of Parliament, if the only Members of Parliament are the Westminster Members, compared with the relationship that there will be if there are Assembly Members at the same time. That is an inevitable consequence of having an Assembly in Northern Ireland, and one of its advantages.

Mr. Powell: I understand that if the Assembly were responsible, for example, for the administration of housing it would be entirely proper and logical for the Assembly and its Members to deal with cases, personal as well as general, relating to housing. It would not be proper for those cases to be put before a Member of Parliament, and in all normal common sense and decency he would transfer them, but we are dealing with an Assembly that has no responsibilities and where the matters of personal concern, which are mentioned in this amendment, are matters that can be dealt with only on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers as responsible to the House of Commons. That is the difference.

Mr. Prior: I agree that the Assembly would certainly not have to start with the responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has pointed out on a number of occasions, he is the Minister responsible for health and social services. It was clear at a recent Question Time, as he stated, that that was the first time during the eight or 10 months during which he had held his office that he had been asked a question on health and social security. No one will convince me that there are not a great many

questions that representatives in Northern Ireland would like to have asked the Minister in an Assembly had their constituents had greater access to them, which could and would be provided by an Assembly in Northern Ireland. Although it is a constitutional innovation, I do not believe that it should be ruled out because it is different from the practice that we have always assumed in the House of Commons.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being so courteous at this hour of the day. Is it not a fact that in Northern Ireland there is a very strong and flourishing parliamentary commissioner who deals with problems and in addition there is a complaints commissioner. They both publish voluminous reports, and in 1980 they had something like two or three hundred complaints that they investigated and reported upon. Are not complaints properly and satisfactorily dealt with through those channels?

Mr. Prior: If my hon. Friend is satisfied with the state of democracy and political stability in Northern Ireland he will be the only person who is. I do not believe that having a complaints commissioner deals with the problem adequately. Northern Ireland is asking for—

Mr. Farr: On, a point of order, Mr. Armstrong, The right hon. Gentleman is putting words into Hansard that I did not say. I did not say that I was satisfied with the political position in Northern Ireland.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair. It is not my job to correct speeches.

Mr. Prior: I am sorry if my hon. Friend thinks that I put words into his mouth. If I did, I apologise. I am trying to explain that I do not believe that his suggestion about the Ombudsman is a satisfactory alternative to the arrangements that I propose. I would not put the Committee or myself through the agony of debates night after night unless I sincerely believed that the measure was necessary and right for the greater political authority of Northern Ireland. Some may disagree with me, but that is what we seek.

Sir Philip Goodhart: If members of the Assembly can raise matters brought to them by constituents, who will answer the complaints in the Assembly? In the old Assembly a time was set aside each day for Adjournment debates. Traditionally constituency matters were raised then. Who will answer such debates?

Mr. Prior: Many complaints and representations will be dealt with by Ministers in the ordinary course of correspondence. The intention is that Ministers in this Parliament will accept invitations to go to the Assembly prepared to answer questions and debates and attend Committees. The system cannot be the same as in the House, but Ministers intend to co-operate fully with the new Assembly. That applies to the period when we are trying to move towards a devolved Administration—in the initial phase. I hope that that phase will not last too long. Ministers and the Committee must make an effort to match the needs of the Northern Ireland people. That is how we can do it. Of course, such a system creates constitutional difficulties. The difficulties are already there and our purpose is to seek to overcome them.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Will a Minister be able to go to the Assembly to answer an Adjournment debate?

Mr. Prior: Such matters must be considered by the Assembly and Ministers, and perhaps the chairmen of the Committees, to be set up under clause 4, when we see how matters are developing. We do not intend that Ministers should apply the same attendance procedures to the Assembly as they do to the House, but they will seek to co-operate whenever reasonable.

Mr. Budgen: I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand. I wish to put my point accurately. Surely if the matter is left vague it will lead to nothing but conflict. There will be conflict about whether Ministers are allowed to speak in the Assembly and conflict about whether the Assembly can require the attendance of Ministers. If it is left vague there can be nothing but friction between the two organisations.

Mr. Prior: I have made it plain that there can be no requirement on Ministers to attend the Assembly. But I have also made it plain that when Ministers are requested to attend, they will seek to make themselves available, if the circumstances are propitious and if the Assembly wishes them to attend, particularly Committees, which are of great importance.

Mr. Peter Robinson: It would be useful if the Secretary of State would clarify this point. I make it clear in seeking clarification that I do not necessarily disapprove of what I took out of his earlier comments. Is he saying that the Assembly could so arrange its business that it would have the equivalent of our Question Time so that questions could be put down on the Order Paper and Ministers would be brought to the Assembly to answer them?

Mr. Prior: I do not think that these are issues on which one should reach conclusions in advance, because this is a matter that the Assembly will wish to discuss. It must be left for discussion. There can be no statutory obligation on Ministers to attend the Assembly. I do not think that Ministers would wish to get involved in Question Time at the Assembly. But there will be occasions, in the early stages at any rate, before devolved government has taken place, when it will be appropriate for Ministers, if they are requested to do so, to attend debates, make statements and answer debates. That will be a matter that is best left to the Assembly and Ministers to work out nearer the time, at the time, or after the Assembly has been set up.
I want to deal now with a group of amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams)—

Mr. Budgen: The right hon. Gentleman need not bother; she is not here.

Mr. Prior: —and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) who has sat through the whole debate and is entitled, in regard to the amendments, to take the place of his right hon. Friend.
If I have understood them correctly, this group of amendments has two objectives: to ensure adequate financial control of the operations of the Northern Ireland Assembly and ultimately of a devolved Northern Ireland Administration, and to permit close parliamentary supervision of the expenditure of the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Departments, even in respect of matters that have been devolved.
I share the desire of the right hon. Lady and her colleagues that the Assembly should be run as tightly as it can be. I attach the greatest importance to ensuring that those who consume resources are held fully accountable for their use. Nevertheless, I have had difficulty with these amendments on several counts. The most important is in the terms of principle. They appear, if they do not actually do so, severely to limit the financial responsibility of the Assembly in respect of matters under its control, or at least to keep the Assembly under very tight and, in the Government's view, excessive control from Westminster. I do not see how this can be done if devolution is to be genuine and effective, and is to be seen to be so in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, I agree that there must be close scrutiny and control of the expenditure of the Assembly and of a devolved Administration at all stages of its existence. As I understand it, the main concern of those who tabled these amendments is that the position of this Parliament must be safeguarded.
Although I cannot recommend that the Committee should accept the amendments, I should like to explain why the Government believe that the system of financial control envisaged in the Bill, taken together with the controls already provided for in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, is not merely sufficiently rigorous but would give to a devolved Administration the greatest degree of financial responsibility compatible with the ultimate authority and responsibilities of Parliament.
I should like to remind hon. Members what controls we envisage for each stage in the Assembly's life. Before any legislative powers are devolved, the cost of the Assembly and its Committees will be accounted for to this House through the present Estimates and Appropriation order procedure. The expense of the Assembly will be carried on clause 11 in the Northern Ireland Estimates. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise those Estimates in the normal way and will be asked to vote the money required in an Appropriation order.
The Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General will continue to scrutinise Northern Ireland Departments as at present and to forward his report to the House for consideration. Such an arrangement seems to me wholly right and appropriate and does not stand in need of duplication, as the amendments seem to imply, on the part of the Assembly.
Under devolution the system will inevitably be a little more complicated. The financial arrangements envisaged were set out in some detail in paragraphs 55 to 60 of the recent White Paper. I am sure that the Committee will not expect me to go through them in detail.
Under full devolution, it will be the Government's intention to give a Northern Ireland Administration and a Northern Ireland Assembly a high degree of freedom and discretion in establishing and implementing their public expenditure priorities. That freedom should not be confused with licence. I remind the Committee that the Assembly will be required to appoint a Committee to examine the application of money by the devolved Northern Ireland Departments. That will be a Public Accounts Committee, which will be required to examine the way in money charged on, or appropriated out of, the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland, has been applied.
In addition, although the Government will take careful account of the views of the Assembly and the devolved Administration, the total resources available for Northern Ireland will continue to be settled through the existing


arrangements for the public expenditure survey and will therefore have to be decided by the Government and Parliament at Westminster. That was and remains the position.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Are we not discussing clause 3? Is that not operative at a time when there is no devolution?

The First Deputy Chairman: We are indeed discussing clause 3. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear that in mind.

Mr. Prior: I accept that I was going fairly wide, but I was trying to answer the speeches on the amendments. Therefore, it must be in order for me to comment upon them, otherwise they would not have been grouped in such a way.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Crosby and the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant), by their amendments, want to be certain that where there is a degreee of devolved Government the members of it are acting in a satisfactory manner. They have sought to frame amendments that are designed to point up the need for some proper check on the activities of any Ministers of that devolved Administration.
That raises considerable difficulties. Once one has devolved, the powers must be left to the devolved Administration. On the other hand, the Government and Parliament at Westminster retain the overall control over expenditure. What is more, the best safeguard is the fact that one simply cannot get a devolved Administration to work unless it seeks co-operation between its various members. Therefore, if some Ministers are less popular than others, and might in certain circumstances be regarded as unsatisfactory, the arrangements that have been made by the various parties in forming a devolved Government would break down. In my opinion, we cannot go further than we have gone in control over expenditure. These amendments seek to tie down the matter in a way that would not be acceptable.
8.45 am
In a preliminary speech of some length, I have sought to set out the Government's views on this important clause. The Assembly's scrutinising role in helping to frame legislation, its monitoring role, and—under the next clause—the setting up of Committees are important in leading to devolved government. My amendments will help to give the Assembly confidence that we shall give it a fair chance to debate those matters which are important to the people of Northern Ireland. On that basis, I commend them to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It might help the Committee and the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who intervened to ask me a question, if I were to indicate to the Committee that I would be ready to accept a motion to report Progress some time after 9 o'clock.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Some considerable time has elapsed since such a motion was last put to your predecessor in the Chair, and quite a lot of progress has been made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the Committee helpful outlines on the contents and implications of clause 3. We have had an excellent introductory speech from the right hon. Member—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have indicated to the Committee what is in my mind. The hon. Gentleman must not debate it. I have indicated my discretion in this matter.

Mr. Farr: Did you say, Mr. Armstrong, that you would accept a motion soon after 9 o'clock? How soon is soon?

The First Deputy Chairman: Perhaps I can make myself clear—almost any time after 9 o'clock.

Mr. Farr: Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. I am most grateful to you for that elucidation. In my opinion, the time has now come when the Committee should adjourn its proceedings for the day. We have another full day's debate before us, and that is not very far away.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking on the amendment now, or proceeding to debate what I have indicated to the Committee, in oder to be helpful?

Mr. Farr: I was saying that I thought that it was time that the Committee packed in for the day, and that we suspended our proceedings until later today.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue that matter.

Mr. Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. You last accepted a motion to report Progress about eight or nine hours ago. You now say that in 12 minutes' time, in your discretion, you will accept such a motion. Surely it is not necessary for us to wait another 12 minutes to do something which all members of the Committee know is agreeable to everyone.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Earlier you or one of your predecessors in the Chair said that the decision about when to accept—

Mr. Prior: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee, and would save the Committee any further embarrassment, if at this stage I were to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The First Deputy Chairman: As the Secretary of State is in charge of the Bill, I am prepared to accept that motion.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Do I understand that your decision on the acceptance of a dilatory motion, which you have intimated, very properly, is not debatable by hon. Members, is open to be modified on an indication from the Minister who is in charge of the Bill?

The First Deputy Chairman: Yes; that is the position.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. You were good enough to say that these matters were decided by precedent and principle. So that we can understand that matter better during future debates, I should be grateful if you would be good enough to give your ruling on why there is a difference in status between an application from a Back Bencher and an application from the Secretary of State.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Secretary of State is in charge of the Bill. That is the difference between him and a Back Bencher.

Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. By looking around the Chamber and seeing what hon. Gentlemen were wishing to do on this matter, I was trying to save the Chair from embarrassment and hon. Gentlemen from sitting in the Chamber for a quarter of an hour raising points of order until we reached one minute past nine. I hope, Mr. Armstrong, that the Committee will accept that I was trying to help you and that I had no desire, although I am in charge of the Bill, to force the ruling of the Chair 12 minutes before it might otherwise have been made.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

LIAISON COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Terence L. Higgins be added to the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Water Authorities (Public Accountability)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Christopher Murphy: In initiating the debate on the public accountability of water authorities, I believe it to be appropriate to comment at the outset on the great interest that has been shown by the Government in the problems surrounding the water industry. Clear evidence of this was seen when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment drafted in a team of financial consultants from private accounting firms to conduct an immediate review of increased water charges which resulted in welcome relief for the already hard pressed consumer, both domestic and industrial.
But of even more fundamental concern, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services has previously indicated, is the overall structure of the water industry. Complementary to his recognition of the need for this to be reviewed has been the referral of water authorities to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the reorganisation of the Welsh water supply.
There has been a growing realisation that nearly 10 years after a national policy was formulated circumstances have changed substantially. There is a need to curb pollution more effectively, a need to cope with an increase in demand growth of more than 200 million gallons a day, the need to provide for new reservoirs and all the consequent problems, and so on.
However, underlying all the difficulties being encountered by the water industry is that of the public accountability of water authorities, or, rather, the lack of it. It is with that in mind that I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who I know to be particularly anxious to improve the position, to my Private Member's Bill, the Water Authorities (Public Accountability) Bill, and urge him to give full consideration to implementing it.
Despite the early or late hour, depending on which way one views it, I am delighted that two of the sponsors are present. They hope to participate in this short debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for being here to reply to the debate after such a long sitting.
In essence, my Bill seeks to provide the consumer with direct involvement in the running of his local water authority, by making it mandatory that a water consumers' committee be appointed. At present, under the Water Act 1973, provision is made for the appointment of committees, but unfortunately more often than not little action is taken.
I understand that of the 10 existing authorities only four mention consumer or external consultations in their annual reports. That is often via bodies rather than through individuals. My constituency has recourse to both Thames Water and the Anglian water authority for its needs, and the difference in emphasis is well illustrated. In the first case, divisional advisory panels have been established, consisting of representatives of the local community. I am advised that in the second case there is little attempt at such consumer involvement.
My plea is that the voice of the customers should be given a guaranteed platform. The current system, whereby representation by local authorities and ministerial appointees, remote from the people they serve and unknown by them, is surely inadequate. Care has rightly been taken in many other public utility industries to provide an opportunity for the customer to be heard. There can surely be no justification for water to be an exception to that rule.
However, I am conscious that the Government are fully aware of the unsatisfactory arrangement. Indeed, the Department of Trade produced a report on nationalised industries' consumer consultative councils, which contained comment on water supply, and, even more important, the Department of the Environment issued a consultation document about the membership of regional water authorities, which made direct reference to consultation requirements.
The state of the public accountability of water authorities remains unsatisfactory. The findings of the report into the Severn-Trent authority would surely be echoed in all parts of the land. When the rights of local authorities to nominate a majority of members of the authority were established in the 1973 legislation it was hoped that it would enable consumer interests to be adequately taken into account when the policies of the authority were being determined. It is clear to us that those hopes have not been satisfactorily fulfilled and that better arrangements need to be made to enable the views of consumers to be properly considered.
When it is considered that there is a majority of elected representatives on each water authority, appointed by local government, but that many councils are not given the opportunity to nominate representatives, dissatisfaction is enhanced. When it is also remembered that many of those local councillors have attendance records that leave a great deal to be desired, dissatisfaction is further enhanced.
Water authorities have wide powers to decide their own charging schemes and that has caused great criticism. Indeed, the disparities between standing charges, the level of charges based on domestic or commercial rates, and attitudes towards metered supplies all create more criticism and point conclusively to the need for customer participation.
If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is unable to give an undertaking on the means of achieving the more satisfactory arrangement that is outlined in my Bill, I hope that he will be able to share with hon. Members his likely thinking on further action in consequence of the welcome and much-needed consultation document on the membership of regional water authorities, and perhaps confirm that he will be making a statement to the House soon. I am sure that he agrees with me that more accountability is likely to produce a better and cheaper service, and that that should be the first and main objective.

9 am

Mr. Michael Brown: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) for giving me the opportunity of participating in this important Adjournment debate, albeit very late in the night or early in the morning, or however we may care to describe the time at the end of the sitting. I was associated with my hon. Friend's Bill and I sympathised with his remarks today.
I shall illustrate my support for what my hon. Friend has suggested by drawing the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to an incident that came to my notice yesterday when I received a letter from one of my constituents about the Anglian water authority. As I have been unable to give my hon. Friend notice that I would seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall understand if he is unable to comment on the example that I shall quote. However, it serves to show why he should consider seriously the suggestion that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield.
I have a letter dated 7 June from one of my constituents, Mr. G. Capon of 3, Springfield Rise, Brigg. He wrote to tell me, among other things, about the Anglian water authority. He said:
A few weeks ago every householder received a letter from the Water Board requesting the use of Direct Debit to pay the Water Rate. Surely this request could have been sent out with the rate demand that came a few days later.
I agree with that suggestion. He then makes some justified comments about the size of the authority's staff, the cost of postage and the general cost to the authority.
Mr. Capon raises a more extraordinary matter about which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should be aware. The Anglian water authority addresses its account and Mr. Capon sent me a copy of the latest account date, which was 12 March 1982. It is addressed correctly to Mr. George Capon, 3, Springfield Rise, Brigg. The addressed was correct when the authority sent out its account requiring money to be paid. However, on 26 May the authority, having presumably accepted that it had addressed Mr. Capon's account correctly as the money had been paid and the water had not been cut off, sent him a card bearing a second class 12½p stamp. It was addressed to Mr. Capon at Plot No. 3, Springfield Rise, Brigg. It stated that as the authority's inspector had been unable to contact Mr. Capon it was requesting him to complete the card and to return it to the office. Apparently no stamp was required for that card. Postage had to be paid when the card was sent out by the authority and postage had to be paid by the authority when it was sent back. The information requested is confirmation of change of address.
Not content with sending that card on 26 May, another card was sent on 28 May. Again, it cost the authority 12½p to send it to Mr. Capon at Plot 3, Springfield Rise, Brigg, and 12½p when Mr. Capon sent it back. It was obviously desperate to get the information. In its view, Mr. Capon had not notified it of a change of address. However, he wrote on the compliment slip that accompanied his bill:
This is how the demand for my water rate has been addressed for the past five years.
Somewhere in the Anglian water authority offices there is someone who spent quite a lot of time and energy on 26 May, and because he or she had not received a reply on 28 May a further card was mailed. However, the accounts department had the right address. Mr. Capon's letter continues:
Last week I received the enclosed two cards and you will notice that they are dated the 26th and the 28th, another duplication! Each one was in art envelope franked 12½p and if returned another 12½p. As far as I am aware no inspector has called, nor should they want to as I have lived here since the bungalow was built and for the last five years I have always paid all my rates properly. I phoned the Water Board to ask the reasons for two cards and I was answered by a young girl who said that they had no record of my address and she could not comprehend that plot number three became number three on


completion of the building. She still requested that both cards were returned so that she could 'Look into the matter'. Little wonder that the rates are so high!
Mr. Capon would be a first-rate candidate to be a consumer representative along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield outlined. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider this classic example that I received yesterday as being an excellent reason why he should consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): The diligence of my hon. Friends has carried us through to this point in the proceedings. Debating the problem of water authorities is a much more amicable subject than what has gone before.
I shall deal first with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown). We are dancing a merry capon at this time in the morning. I note what he has said. I somehow detected the magic eye of the computer that has once again failed to keep pace with its own intelligence. Now that my hon. Friend has released the information in public, I am sure that he will wish to send it to the chairman of the Anglian water authority. I am sure that Mr. Henderson will be pleased to conduct the appropriate examination, and give an explanation if possible into the error that has clearly been made.
I turn now to the main issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) about water authorities' accountability and the relationship of the consumer to the industry. I strongly agree that accountability and the role of the consumer have been among the main issues under discussion, whether it be from the point of view of the size of the water rate bill or of difficulty with water authority activities. The lack of consumer rapport has been one of the most obvious features of public discussion about water authorities recently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield reminded the House that reference to water was made in the document about nationalised industries and consumers that was issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. He may recall that when the water authorities were being established it was the Government's intention under the water legislation to have one or more consumer consultative councils for each water authority, no doubt with representatives from local authorities, domestic and industrial users, farmers and so on. In the event, it was decided not to proceed with that. It was arranged instead that a majority of water authority members should be appointed by local government.
The majority of water authority members are drawn from local government and represent local authorities. That has provided at least one of the questions that our consultative document was intended to provide an answer to. It is true that the present structure with regard to consumer protection has not worked effectively. The sheer size of water authorities that flowed from the decision to have a large representation from local government has probably militated against their efficiency.
I applaud my hon. Friend's principle to try to draw out the question of accountability and to match consumer

representation with it. There has been widespread anxiety that the present system is not working as it was intended to do. For example, the turnover of local authority representation has been high. Since mid-1979 there has been a turnover of 43 per cent. in the number of water authority members appointed by local authorities. In some authorities it has been even higher—up to 60 per cent. in some cases. I know that the Thames area in particular has suffered from that.
I should make clear what our consultation is not about. The consultation paper is not about changing the authorities' areas. We are still pledged to maintain the complete water cycle management by a single authority over groups of river basins. That is the geographical basis for the structuring of the authorities, which I think is in every way sound. Over time, it has developed an immense range of services and investment programmes which have been of major benefit to all. Certainly I believe that that structure has worked well.
The investigations by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the Severn-Trent authority and its two related water companies, however, show that it is time for a careful examination and probably time for change. The report indicated that the consumer role of the local authority members had not been satisfactorily fulfilled. The commission recommended that membership should be substantially reduced and not based predominantly on local government representation. It suggested that such reductions might produce cost savings estimated at about £650,000 per annum, excluding any savings that it had in mind for land drainage and so on.
My hon. Friends will note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has reconstituted the Welsh water authority with effect from 1 April this year and reduced its size to 13 members, all of them appointed by him. My right hon. Friend has the power in Wales to implement those changes by order, which we in England do not have. The Welsh water authority is to appoint local consumer advisory committees under section 6(8) of the Water Act 1973, akin to the proposal in my hon. Friend's Bill.
It will be seen from this that the constitution of the authorities themselves, whether in Wales or in England, is closely bound up with arrangements to represent consumers. Therefore, my hon. Friend's Bill, to which he referred and which would make the appointment of consumer committees mandatory, raises a perfectly fair issue.
Some water authorities already have such committees. For example, both Thames and Wessex have established divisional advisory committees on different lines to look after the needs of local consumers. In the case of Thames, the committees are formed from water authority members, both appointed and local authority, and coincide with the new divisional structure. My hon. Friend may in his constituency capacity have received a letter from the chairman of the Thames authority which was sent to all hon. Members on 13 April, outlining these arrangements.
In Wessex, the chairmen are appointed by the authority and members by district councils and other local interests. Other authorities hold regular member-officer meetings with local authorities and other interested bodies. I am not sure, however, that we should impose any of these diverse arrangements without considering their relationship with the members of the authority itself and any implications for the authorities' structure.
I turn to the consultation paper which we issued and to which my hon. Friend drew attention. In general, the responses indicate that local authorities favour continuation of the present arrangements or an increase in the number of local authority members that they appoint. Most of the other organisations, however, have favoured small boards with or without some continuing local authority presence.
We are considering our response to that consultation and I expect an announcement to be made soon. I assure my hon. Friend that in reaching our decision the interests of consumers will be in the forefront of our minds. It would be wrong to make any change which did not in our view represent an improved way for consumers to make known their views, whether taking up an individual complaint or commenting in some broader aspect of authority policy.
In this way, one would certainly use consumers as one form of the accountability to which my hon. Friend drew particular attention. He will understand, of course, that accountability in the strictly financial sense has been taken several steps further forward in the gradual development by the Department of performance aims and careful reviews of capital expenditure programmes, with authority emanating from the Secretary of State. Consultants, with the full co-operation of the water authorities, have now been able to undertake timely reviews of budgeting processes and to make helpful observations for water authorities to act upon.
We will certainly take consumers firmly into account. I indicated that an announcement had not yet been made, and my hon. Friend would not expect me to go into these matters in detail. Nevertheless, it is fair to give some idea of the principles that our new proposals should bear in mind.
First, and in general, it is important that both my hon. Friends recognise that we are considering basically a political issue—the relationship between the citizen and a public monopoly. It is right and proper that hon. Members should be concerned. If a public authority is not measuring up to its job, it is then open to the politicians to take action through the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe said that he would, or to recommend action to Parliament.
This relationship, as well as being responsive to the needs and requirements of water industry consumers, must also consider the broader aspects of accountability. Here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield. The interests of the public as taxpayers—nominal owners—as well as customers must be looked after.
There is no cut and dried answer, nor do I think that the answers are separate. Each aspect, as we have discovered from our consultations, impinges on the others. But, as I said earlier, it is essential that any new arrangements that we make must reflect the best interests of the citizen, whether taxpayer or consumer.
First, then, accountable for what? Like all public bodies, the water authorities exist to do the job laid on them by Parliament and they must be accountable for how they do those jobs. They must primarily discharge their statutory duty properly and any accountability regime must have this as a primary objective.
Like all public bodies handling publicly owned resources, water authorities must be accountable for the efficiency with which those resources are used. This is

particularly important since water authorities are suppliers of an essential commodity or service and in this instance one cannot rely on competition or consumers' choice as spurs to efficiency. Competition protects consumers by giving them choices. It compels suppliers to put the interests of the consumer before the interests of the supplier or those who work for the supplier. Monopolies, as we know well do not have the stimulus of competition and their accountability arrangements need to be considered with particular care.
There is the broader question of proper administration. This was a large feature in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the Severn-Trent authority. This may include the sort of thing that the ombudsman investigates, but in practice may go a good deal further and include liaison with Members of Parliament, local authorities, consumer bodies and the question of how consumer complaints are handled. All these are matters that fill hon. Members' post bags, bring constituents to their surgeries and make up a large part of their correspondence. We have to deal with that aspect of proper administration.
I have indicated that water authorities are already accountable in law, and hon. Members will know that we have now provided, in schedule 3 of the Local Government (No. 2) Bill, for continuing public access to water authorities' accounts. This includes the right to draw the auditor's attention to matters on which to make a report if the auditor considers that the public interest so requires.
We also have to establish a sensible accountability regime. All water authorities, like the nationalised industries, have to make annual reports to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who in turn lays them before Parliament. My right hon. Friend may direct what the annual report should contain, as well as ask for specific information at certain times. Water authorities provide information through the provision that, unless they are discussing confidential matters, their meetings are open to the public and their minutes are public documents. I fancy that not many of my hon. Friends take advantage of that fact. The water authorities are infinitely more exposed than nationalised industries.
I have already referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the Severn-Trent water authority. The Competition Act 1980 empowered the commission to investigate its standards and efficiency. As part of its programme the commission investigated the overall management of the authority and the two water companies in great detail. It made over 70 detailed recommedations for improving the management of the authority and the companies.
The Severn-Trent water authority has responded with a plan for action to improve its management systems, to cut costs—often building on work in hand before the commission reported. It expects to save about £6·5 million in 1982–83, with increasing savings in the following year. I emphasise that that authority has responded firmly and quickly to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report and that substantial savings will be achieved for the benefit of consumer; in the Severn-Trent water authority area.
The two water companies also responded to the recommendations affecting them and we considered the report with the other regional water authorities, which have reacted positively in reviewing their own systems and taking steps to improve them.
As a further sign of our anxiety to improve the efficiency of water authorities we have, as I said, arranged for financial consultants to examine water authorities' budgets for the last two years. The result of these exercises, together with the steps that authorities are already taking, is a considerable saving in operating costs—probably more than £30 million over the two years. These are gains in efficiency and reductions in costs which, we hope, will be achieved in perpetuity and which have set the authorities firmly on the road to tightening even further the management of their operators.
The Government have certainly shown proof of their commitment to cut costs and to investigate and seek efficiency, but the role of management is obviously vital in this drive for greater efficiency. Progress made so far can be sustained and built on only with the participation of highly motivatated management, providing an impetus within each authority. That will be another principle that we shall seek to embody in reviewing the results of the consultation exercise and in arriving at proposals to put before the House.
We are taking every opportunity to encourage greater cost consciousness and a sharper sense of value for money. We are confident that authorities share that aim. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot go further than that this morning. We have not made our decisions on the future structure of the industry, but I have indicated some of the considerations that we would have in mind and some of the improvements we would be seeking.
I must recognise my hon. Friend's interest in these matters and the Bill that he has introduced. I share his aim that between us we must ensure that accountability is made more obvious to the consumer and that the consumer is given a fairer share in the decision-making process of water authorities so that there is a bridge in the gap that so patently exists between water authorities, the citizen and the consumer.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Nine o'clock am.